Talk:Theistic realism/Archive 1

This is urgently in need of: some balance; some focus (sticking to self-described theistic realism, or concepts demonstrably closely related), some internal criticism and opposing POVs, and and in short, some NPOV. Alai 04:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

what exactly do you have in mind? does npov always require opposing viewpoints? there are none on Philosophical naturalism after all ... Ungtss 12:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, neutral tone throughout would be perfectly fine; Philosophical naturalism would be a pretty good model. Short article on a topic of unarguable notability, tight focus, no lengthy "arguing in favour", or digressing off into block quotations of at-best-marginal relatedness.

Care to defend, for example, 'However, having rejected God and Truth, these same humanists seem curiously absent when their schemes inevitably collapse into chaos.'? Alai 15:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

neutral tone is a great goal and i agree with you -- obviously i'm not aware enough of my own bias to identify it, so feel free to clean it up. as to that quote in question, however, it seems right in line with the quote from romans at the beginning ... "minds become darkened ..." and it certainly reflects the purpose of the song ... Ungtss 15:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the scriptural quotes, as I'm also not clear on how this illuminate the topic, either. (This is very possibly simply a failure of understanding on my part.) In particular, the whole article could do with clarifying how T. realism differs from theism in the round. The difference from deism's clear enough, but isn't that implied? Alai 17:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hmm ... perhaps we can work together on expressing things more neutrally and effectively -- the essence of johnson's argument is, "nothing makes sense unless you believe in God first -- so if you stop believing in God, everything stops making sense and your brain rots." that's the same argument made in Romans -- when you turn from the Creator, your mind rots. same thing with Pilate -- "you've rejected God, so now you're muttering 'what is truth,' while God's son is dying. your brain has rotted." i couldn't figure out an effective and neutral way to express that -- any ideas? Ungtss 17:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm following a little better now: I was struggling to make sense of it as a cosmologically-oriented philosophy. Perhaps this should be moved entire out of the creationism 'space', then? This noew seems to me to be related more closely to moral relativism/absolutism, and/or bio on the author, than that latterb topic. Alai 17:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

good point ... but johnson's argument is in the context of creationism -- in essence, if you deny that God created the universe, then SCIENCE stops making sense. the johnson quotes (and he coined the term) are in a book arguing for Intelligent design. as you say, tho, it's definitely broader -- perhaps it belongs in both contexts? Ungtss 18:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly if it has pertinence to those topics, by all means include it in some form or other. But as it starts the article seems to be making only really moral/scriptural observations, and it's only linked to from the creationism pages. Perhaps some of this material would make more sense in Phillip E. Johnson (in illustration of his key ideas), or some of the places I alluded to previously, or indeed, naturalism, etc? (Prominent critic of, yadda.) Alai 18:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

excellent point ... i'll try to draw out the connections with creationism more clearly, and move some of it over to Johnson:). Ungtss 18:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So to recap: I'm suggesting that aspects of this article general to theism be moved there, or to other philosophy (of religion or otherwise) articles as appropriate; that aspects particular to PEJ be moved there. What remains should ideally be (relatively) specific to Creationism, since that's the series of article it's in (if it really needs its own article at all). Alai 18:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the way i read it, it's all very tightly related to creationism ... which sections specifically do you think should move out? theistic realism is distinct from theism generally, because theism allows for theistic naturalism ... and this idea is specifically opposed to it and related specifically do the idea that God actually DOES things. what specifically do you think should be moved out, and what should be left? Ungtss 18:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I were clearer on that, I'd be editting more zealously myself. Theistic realism/theistic naturalism isn't a standard distinction (AFAIK), and I'm concerned we're basically getting terminological fragmentation due to some coinage of PEJ. What WP calls "theism second sense" seems pretty much equivalent (as distinct from deism). If it's particular to him, shouldn't there be less here, and more on his article; if it's a more generally accepted concept then the article ought to be clearer on how it differs from theism, how else it's used in that precise sense (by (other) philosophers, etc), as opposed to the the pretty-much-general-purpose-theism supporting material that's in there now. Alternatively, look at the list of related concepts at the bottom of theism, and ponder how it fits in that 'scheme' of things. Alai 19:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Theistic realism/theistic naturalism isn't a standard distinction (AFAIK), and I'm concerned we're basically getting terminological fragmentation due to some coinage of PEJ.>>

i think you're right ... but i also think he made an important distinction, even if it's not standard terminology. both are forms of theism/deism (deism just being a form of theism based on philosophy rather than faith) because they both believe in God. however, the distinction allows us to divide theistic naturalists (who tend to be theistic evolutionists i would think) from theistic realists (who are special creationists), and gives the reasoning behind adhering to the latter philosophy.

<<What WP calls "theism second sense" seems pretty much equivalent (as distinct from deism).>>

close, but i think theistic realism is a subset of the above belief. one can believe in a god actively involved in maintaining the universe, but still believe that god works only through naturalistic means -- that generally makes people theistic evolutionists.

by contrast, theistic realism (admittedly a term coined by johnson although i don't know of anyone else who has made this distinction within theism) provides a very important distinction -- not only is God actually involved in the universe, but he DOES stuff to it -- specifically, he assembles life deliberately and with a purpose, and builds gardens for people with trees of life in them.

if we had this distinction made somewhere else, i'd think it would be a good idea to merge it in -- but where? nobody's made this distinction except johnson to my knowledge ... but i think it's a very important and valuable insight into the philosophical presuppositions underlying creationism. what do you think? Ungtss 23:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that is implied by theism (in the narrower sense), but granted the god in 'theistic evolution' seemingly does... well, less. But he does act, otherwise it really would be deism. I'm not clear enough myself on the precise distinctions to say anything definitive. The article doesn't seem too bad as things stand, and you've certainly improved it a good deal; mainly I'm struggling to have it 'fit in' a bit better (mind with a strong urge to put things in boxes). At the least, there's a hatful of the links at the bottom of the theism page taht are at least related concepts, and ought at least to be worth a link to (and indeed very possibly from). I'd think Creator god, and Creationist theology for starters... Alai 02:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i'll definitely start with some links:). Ungtss 04:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antecedent ideas

Theistic realism is a very narrowly defined idea relating taking the theistic conceit to mean that one should do science with an acceptance of a theistic creator. As such, the following two antecedent ideas are seemingly oblique:

"Although not using the term "Theistic realism," many others have held to the same basic tenets.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" -- Psalm 14:1.

In the Timaeus, Plato wrote the following question and answer sometime around 350 BC. [1]

Is the world created or uncreated? -- that is the first question.

Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and if sensible, then created; and if created, made by a cause, and the cause is the ineffable father of all things, who had before him an eternal archetype."

I agree that these two quotes can be viewed as relevent to theistic realism, but they also can be viewed from the contrary position that they aren't dealing with science in the case of the Psalms quote and that they aren't dealing with theism in the case of the Plato quote. Since the article is devoted to basically outlining Johnson's argument, it seems a bit disingenuous to include these two bits. I think the Chesterton and the Bergman quotes are more in-line, though they could probably be editted down a bit and the stuff not relating directly to theistic realism could be removed. Please, Ungtss, consider this. Joshuaschroeder 19:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. what do you think about moving them all over to wikiquote? Ungtss 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Joshuaschroeder 00:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Defense of realism section

Ungtss --

Rather than adding a section that attacks the criticism section, can you incorporate the points into the article itself? Most of them would fit nicely into the article. The "strawman" argument could be acknowledged in the criticism section itself. If you give the go ahead, I'll do that. Joshuaschroeder 00:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to scrap the section myself. I have included the "ID" argument above because it is definitely a counterpoint made by Johnson. The "supernatural" being "natural" is a completely invented argument that I cannot find anywhere but in your own posts on talkpages here at wikipedia, Ungtss. By definition, a "supernatural" event is an event which is either a) claimed to have taken place which is not corroborated scientifically (such as a miracle) or b) an event which does not occur in nature. Your analogy of the airplane is ludicrous because an airplane is an observation that is corroborated scientifically and is therefore, by definition, not supernatural. If you think it is supernatural, you have a different definition than the one provided by Wikipedia. If a miracle can be observed than it is by definition part of nature and by definition not supernatural. The strawman argument will be discussed in the criticism section. Joshuaschroeder 00:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schroeder, what you are doing is wrong. If you will not allow a brief rebuttal to the arguments in your unattributed, pov personal research essay, then i will not allow your essay. and by the way, read supernatural for an introduction to other definitions of supernatural than the one you naively assume is the "only one." Ungtss 00:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rebuttal should take place in the article itself. Otherwise, are you going to allow a counterrebuttal and a counter-counterrebuttal? I will put up an RfC if you wish. Joshuaschroeder 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sheer hypocrisy. the main article cannot anticipate your every nonsense criticism. you've made a practice of interesting counter-rebuttals-to-rebuttals when it serves your purpose. Ungtss 00:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article anticipates the ID argument very well because it is a good argument. The strawman argument can be made mention of in the criticism section itself since it is really up to the perspective of the reader. The second argument hasn't been justified by yourself as being legitimate. Since you have a hard time understanding scientific evidence (just like Johnson, really), this isn't surprising. Maybe we should have a section scientific evidence if that's really a big deal to you. Then we can include a criticism in the criticism section. Joshuaschroeder 16:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not obligated to justify my arguments as legitimate to you. I am required to attribute them. Further, the fault lies not with my inability to understand scientific evidence, but your very naive and narrow definition thereof. Ungtss 16:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are obligated to present arguments that are made in an NPOV fashion. Right now, the argument as it appears in the article seems to indicate that it is common fact that one cannot study an engine without considering that it was designed for a purpose. This is unacceptable. Joshuaschroeder 16:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The analogy is written in npov form. like all analogies, it rests on the strength of the analogy. if a reader rejects the analogy, he rejects the argument. Ungtss 16:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the introduction of supernatural states "Unlike natural forces, these putative supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory." End of story. Joshuaschroeder 00:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeez man. "Current scientific understanding. not nature itself. That intro is consistent with my argument. just because current science doesn't get it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. read farther down the article if you'd like to actually read the "end of the story." Ungtss 00:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is inconsistent with your argument because there is nothing in science that says that current description is the be-all and end-all of scientific thought. Rather, your argument is ridiculous because it is claiming that supernatural argumentation is reasonable because it is actually natural. Joshuaschroeder 00:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what i'm saying -- what we think is supernatural is actually natural -- it only seems supernatural because we don't understand it. you have no right to delete that. Ungtss 00:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is exactly what you are saying than you are arguing against a ghost since anything that is naturally explainable is by definition no longer supernatural. Joshuaschroeder 00:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there are many things in the universe that are natural, but not naturally explainable, because we cannot explain them. Ungtss 00:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the argument that you made, nor is its converse the argument made in the criticism section. Joshuaschroeder 00:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is the response to your argument. Just because we don't understand supernatural phenomena and miracles doesn't mean they can't happen -- it only means we don't understand them. Ungtss 00:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If they are empirically observed then they are not supernatural. Joshuaschroeder 00:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then Jesus' resurrection is not supernatural, but abiogenesis is. Ungtss 01:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Resurrection is not empirically observed. Processes found in abiogenesis are. Joshuaschroeder 04:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of independent reports of that particular resurrection involving first hand claims of observation. abiogenesis has never been observed. Ungtss 05:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Processes found in abiogenesis are observed. Nucleic acid experiments and self-organization of peptide chains are empirically seen in the laboratory. Eyewitness and say-so testimony of anything whether "independent" or not is not considered empirical evidence. It it was, we'd have to say there was empirical evidence for the existence of Roswell aliens. Joshuaschroeder 16:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

processes involved in resurrection have been observed as well, in the form of CPR. And reports are empirical evidence for the roswell aliens -- the only question is their credibility. Your error is thinking that things you don't understand can't happen. but you're not even consistent in that, because you believe abiogenesis can happen even tho you've never seen it. Ungtss 16:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Jesus was resurrected via CPR? If so, then you are correct that such would be evidence for resurrection. Scientific empiricism does not consider the reports from Rosewell to be empirical, eyewitness accounts are not considered scientific. Joshuaschroeder 16:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark this down, folks, "eyewitness accounts are not considered scientific." Excellent work, schroeder. You've defined all of history as unscientific. Ungtss 16:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History based only on eyewitness accounts with no other corroborating evidence is definitely unscientific. Joshuaschroeder 16:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On what basis? Why, if eyewitness accounts are the only things available with no other evidence pro or con, are they considered unscientific rather than of questionable credibility? Ungtss 16:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there are no ways to independently verify an eyewitness account, it is unscientific. It is of questionable credibility if you think that science is a good means for determining credibility. I happen to think that science is a good means for determining credibility. Not everyone agrees. Joshuaschroeder 16:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So the details of the recorded events, conversations, and lives of the Conquistadors are unscientific? Nobody said that verifiability wasn't a good method of determining credibility -- it's certainly the best -- but there's no reason to believe it's the only one, and that nothing can be believed that can't be independently verified. i see no reason to exclude eye-witness reports simply because they cannot be independently corroborated. Ungtss 17:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the uncorroborated eyewitness accounts of the natural world as the conquistador tells it are not scientific evidence for the way the natural world is. I never said that there was only one means to determining credibility, but scientific means I think are among the best. As such, an eyewitness account meant to be evidence for a miracle is not scientific evidence. Miraculous events should have indisputable scientific evidence in order for their credibility to be legitimatized. I.e. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Joshuaschroeder 18:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well then you better get crackin' on deconstructing history articles, because a great deal of history is based on accounts uncorroborated by hard evidence. Ungtss 20:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to deconstruct History. History as a study is independent of science. The two inform each other occasionaly, but they are not equivalent nor do they use the same standards of measurement or the same underlying philosophy. That's why there is no such thing as a Bachelor of Science or Masters of Science in History. Joshuaschroeder 20:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And that is why astronomers such as yourself are neither sufficiently educated nor qualified to critique the historical arguments from creationism from the standards of operational science, because the methods of operational science are insufficient for a historical inquiry into the origin of life. Ungtss 20:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a historical inquiry into the origin of life. Anyway, I have yet to see a history text that addresses the subject from a mechanistic standpoint. Of course, there are interesting histories about people's opinions on the matter, but in terms of actual science apparently only the historical discourse is to be accepted in your eyes? Joshuaschroeder 22:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When scientists make the claim that life originated through abiogenesis x billion years ago, they're making a historical claim. Ungtss 22:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inasmuch as history deals with time, a scientifically measured variable. History as a discipline is confined to human communication about the past. Science has no such limitation. Joshuaschroeder 22:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

science is limited by what is observable, repeatable, and verifiable. insofar as scientists make assertions about unique events assumed to have occured billions of years ago which cannot be observed, repeated, or comprehensively demonstrated, it makes assertions grounded in neither science nor history, but solely in their religion of atheism. Ungtss 22:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, science is limited to what is observable, repeatable, and empirical (verifiable is a bad term for sundry reasons). However, it is a false assertion to state that scientific observations cannot give information about events that occured billions of years ago. Ignorance of how science operates is no excuse. Also, since there are a significant fraction of scientists who study events that occur in the past who are not atheists and the vast majority of them come to the same conclusions as the atheist scientists, it is interesting that you think that the assertions are solely grounded in atheism. There must be a lot of closet atheists out here in the scientific community. Or maybe you think we take the theistic scientists into theaters and brainwash them. Joshuaschroeder 22:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if science did not see abiogenesis, and cannot definitively describe and demonstrate how it happened, then its assertion that it occurred is not grounded in science but wishful thinking. That's the long and short of it. You have nothing to back your claims with. We, at least, have an old story. Ungtss 22:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Science doesn't see anything. Scientists observe processes that are related to abiogenesis. The argument you make that abiogenesis isn't science would be akin to arguing that when Newton formulated his theory of gravity it wasn't science because it involved spooky "action at a distance". Just becaue we don't see every detail of how a theory works or happened doesn't mean the theory isn't scientific. The complete dismissal of scientific evidence that you find contrary to your "old story" is typical creationist pap. There is no reason for it to be considered legitimate. Joshuaschroeder 00:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scientists have never observed non-living matter spontaneously form into a self-replicating protocell. There are no "details" about it. The phenomenon is unobserved. Ungtss 00:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abiogenesis is not a statement that such a process should be observable over time, material, and energy scales available to us in today's lab. However, there are specific processes which should be observable over those scales and such processes are observed. Therefore the predicted phenomena from abiogenesis are observed. Your argument is a common creationist screed that comes in many forms arguing that if all the specific details of a process cannot be exactly determined the process must have never occured in the first place. There will always be mysteries in science, there will always be things we don't fully understand. That does not mean that scientific theories are based on "nothing" as you would have it. In fact, they are based on the sum total of all observations ever made. Joshuaschroeder 02:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Double standard. When it comes to beliefs you want to accept, arguments that it is unreasonable to believe in abiogenesis because it cannot be observed or explained are "god of the gaps" fallacies, because "things will never be fully explained." But when it comes to beliefs such as creation or resurrection that you don't want to accept, you argue that it is unreasonable to believe them because they cannot be naturalistically explained. In fact, neither of them can be explained, and so neither are strictly scientific, no matter how hard you wish it to be otherwise. we are dependent on first-hand accounts and educated guesses on both counts. however, there are ancient histories reporting creation and resurrection, while your hopes for abiogenesis remain sheer pipe dream. Ungtss 02:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about "explanations" but rather empirical "observations" here. The framework of abiogenesis is vague at best because it doesn't rely on anything more than very rudimentary observations about biogenic precursors. There is no strict roadmap outlined that says that life came into existence in one way or another. In fact, to be perfectly honest, God of the gaps is a rationale that cannot be ruled out as an explanation for this in a scientific sense. If you want to believe that God designed life at this rudimentary level to be a certain way, there really isn't any observation that can be pointed to that says that this is incorrect because of the gaps in our knowledge. For this reason, I personally don't consider "God of the gaps" to be a fallacy. I actually consider it to be a defensible position, though it requires continually reevaluating one's veiw of the God in question.

What it comes down to is that there are predictions made by a very broad "abiogenesis" model that concur with observations. Miller-Urey-type experiments continue to be done in mol. bio. labs around the world to this day. What we have is a lot of empirical evidence that biochemical precursors to life do exist in prebiotic conditions. Prebiotic evolution or chemical evolution is observed to occur in nucleic acid mixtures as well as in other organic situations. There is no expectation that our labs should be able to give rise to protocells as is or be able to replicate the early evolution of life on Earth. Nor can we say for certain that life necessarily evolved from a prebiotic state on Earth and wasn't innoculated on the planet by some rogue comet or something. As I've said previously, there are a lot of mysteries in the whole endeavor.

But there is something very different between the resurrection idea and abiogenesis and that is that the resurrection is taken to be a one-time event that shouldn't necessarily have empirical implications beyond the existence of Christianity. We don't have any means to evaluate scientifically the existence of sin or the redemption of a person who believe on the Resurrection of Christ. What we do have is a claim that a man was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead after three days. The first three statements are not contrary to what is observed for other men, but the fourth statement is a claim that is. As such, we might ask what are the observational consequences of this. To my knowledge, there are no tests of this that can falsify this claim. This is the basic nature of faith, as I understand it.

Contrast that with abiogenesis which is a claim that there are chemical processes which will act as precursor evolution to basic life. This is a claim that can be falsified. For example, we could find a process that physically prohibitted from occuring in a prebiotic state that is found in all life. There are a number of suggested characteristics of life that might be taken as candidates for such a falsification: self-replication, entropy reduction, etc. It is these very processes that are being probed both experimentally and theoretically by molecular biologists to see what kinds of falsifications are available for abiogenesis. Certainly we don't think that DNA assembles itself without bootstrap mechanisms. That means that a model for abiogenesis that is conditional on DNA simply appearing randomly is already falsified.

Part of the reason ID is so vehemently opposed by scientists then is because it belies falsification in the above way. Can you think of a test that would rule out a certain kind of Intelligent Design versus another? Since most IDers vehemently deny that they are "God of the gappers", what they are saying is that there is a particular form of the origin of life that necessarily must exist. This is an arrogance that isn't found within the people in the scientific community working on the problems associated with abiogenesis. It is an assumption that is extra-scientific, one that belies falsification.

ID may be thought of as a premature supernatural mechanistic explanation that imposes itself on science which is, at its fundamental roots, purely natural. As Feynmann puts it, science doesn't answer the question of "why" it only answers the question of "how" and only does that to the extent that the theory, observations, and work on the problems associated with science are fully explored. We have no hope to ever exhaust the sum total of the capacity for humanity to be able to observe, so requiring a default assumption that "God did it" is a real imposition.

That said, there's nothing intrinsic in science that prevents the theist from taking comfort in the gaps or claiming a supernatural cause for natural events since science isn't about explaining the "why" but rather just the "how". However, a God that acts in history in ways that are contrary to the laws of science just isn't a scientific theory.

You have said that it could be that the supernatural is simply just the natural manifested in ways that are beyond human comprehension. I actually agree with this statement. Lightning to the ancient human must have seemed very supernatural. That we have naturalistic explanations for this phenomenon that was said to be the purview of the gods might be said to be one of two things: one) a disproof of the ancient human's god of lightning or two) a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural event that was at one time beyond human comprehension that need not disprove the existence of the ancient human's god at all but merely is a new definition for it. If all supernatural events are really explainable within the context of nature, then nature really all there is and your left back with philosophical naturalism. If God can be explained away with natural phenomenon, that can either be seen as a disproof of God or an acknowledgement of a different kind of God. Who am I to judge? After all, science doesn't say "why" things occur as they do -- only "how".

To sum up, abiogenesis being incomplete isn't a double standard at all because no one told you that the resurrection didn't happen -- only that we didn't have any scientific evidence for it. Do we have scientific evidence for how the first DNA molecule found its way into a cell? Not at present time. But that's not the sum total of abiogenesis. If you want to compare the resurrection to a specific as yet unobserved process WITHIN abiogenesis be my guest. However, as science continues to investigate, it seems to me that you may find yourself in a God of the Gaps scenario all over again.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Joshuaschroeder 03:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Engine argument

"By analogy, within the framework of theistic realism, when one studies a vehicle engine which was designed and constructed, one must understand it as deliberately designed for a purpose if one wishes to truly understand how and why it functions."

You put this paragraph back in. I know that it is supposed to be a "by analogy" argument but the analogy is stretched to the point of telling mechanics how to look at engines. I would like a citation to a reference on engines that states that one must understand an engine as deliberately designed for a purpose. If something cannot be provided, how can such a claim be reasonably included in the article? Joshuaschroeder 00:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

schroeder, you cannot require that every argument attributed to someone else make sense to you. if someone reads the argument and rejects the premise that a mechanic must approach an engine as designed, he'll reject the argument. but the fact that you think it's a bad argument does not justify its deletion. Ungtss 00:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is that attributed? I see no attribution. Joshuaschroeder 00:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Within the framework of theistic realism," schroeder. now where is anything in your essay attributed? Ungtss 00:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(and by the way, you're misusing non sequitur. non sequitor means the conclusion does not follow from the premise. but you are challenging the premise. you should describe this as a "false premise.") Ungtss 00:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, ungtss, show me this "framework of theistic realism" that makes the claim. Joshuaschroeder 00:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Show you why? so you can ignore it too? read the book, schroeder. it's clear as day. you are not qualified to edit articles about topics you don't understand. Ungtss 00:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I have said time and again, simply having an argument in a book does not mean that the argument should be in the encyclopedia. A good argument needs to be independently verifiable and corroborated. You can check up on all of my criticisms. They are found at [www.talkreason.org], [www.talkorigins.org], and the Panda's Thumb archive. Joshuaschroeder 00:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no. encyclopedias must document bad arguments when they are relevent to the subject matter, you are not authorized to determine which are good and which are bad. Ungtss 00:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia does not have to report any tripe that anyone wants to included just because it is found in a book. This is simply not true, and I challenge you to find a Wikipedia policy that states otherwise. Joshuaschroeder 00:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

npov#pseudoscience. further, there is absolutely no policy justification for your repeated deletions of arguments you don't like. Ungtss 00:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not what I asked for. The problem is that bad writing or material that is explained poorly is not fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 04:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that is not what you asked for. read what you wrote above. as to your new argument, "bad writing or material that is explained poorly" should be improved, not deleted. that's what wikipedia is. if Evolution was poorly written, would that justify its deletion? No. it would justify its improvement. Ungtss 05:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not my fault if you cannot understand the point being made. Moreover, I have been trying to improve the writing rather than just deleting it. I have included both the strawman argument and the ID argument in the article, but you haven't been able to demonstrate the legitimacy of the engine-argument, whether it is in Johnson's book or not. Joshuaschroeder 16:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to demonstrate the validity of the engine-argument to you. i have to attribute it. Ungtss 16:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, simple attribution is not good enough. If someone began listing anti-semetic arguments from [[Mein Kampf without regard for context or validity, that would be considered not good enough. Joshuaschroeder 16:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If they were in an article about anti-semitism, hitler, mein kampf, or racism so that they were relevent, that would be good enough. Ungtss 16:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read some of the talkpages over there. Sympathetic description does not mean that anything goes. Joshuaschroeder 16:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a case of "anything goes." This is a case of "document the viewpoint." an article on anti-semitism that did not document the views of antisemites would be no article at all. Ungtss 16:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said, you should read the talkpages over there. Description of viewpoints does not mean that every tangential argument contained in a published book deserves to be included in the article. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've shifted your argument. These arguments are not tangential. they are in direct reference to arguments you introduced to the page. Ungtss 16:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have two problematic arguments going on here: 1) arguments that are made by you as rebuttals to standard critiques of Philip Johnsons, 2) arguments like the engine argument made by Philip Johnson that do not belong in an encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 16:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the rebuttals are not tangential because they are in direct reference to your criticism. the engine is not tangential because it's an easy way to understand the core of theistic realism. Ungtss 17:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The engine argument is tangential because it is a poor analogy. Joshuaschroeder 18:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

non-sequitur. an argument is tangential if it is barely relevent. an argument is poor if it is internally flawed. an argument by be relevant and poor, or irrelevent and good. another nonsense argument, schroeder. try again.

Actually, an argument is tangential if it takes a superficial similarity (such as the poor analogy) and runs with it. Joshuaschroeder 20:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tangential tangential: Of, relating to, or moving along or in the direction of a tangent; Merely touching or slightly connected;

Only superficially relevant; divergent: a tangential remark.] Tangential has to do with relevence, not quality. I suppose, because you're a scientist, you're authorized to redefined words, too? Ungtss 20:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ths poor quality is only to indicate the derivative nature of the tangent. Joshuaschroeder 21:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything about derivatives in the english language dictionary definition of tangential. perhaps you'd like to undertake a redefinition of all words for which the definitions don't serve your purposes? Or perhaps you'd like to admit that you are wrong? Ungtss 21:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The etymology of tangent is within the bounds of mathematics, Ungtss, as you can see on the Wikipedia page. If people want to invent tangentially related definitions of tangent for their own use, that's fine, but I know what a tangent is. Do you? Joshuaschroeder 21:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course i know what a tangent is. this discussion is about article quality and english, not geometry. tangential has a very clear definition, and you're wriggling, because you're wrong. Ungtss 21:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Funny, you claim to know what a tangent is, but then criticize my use of derivative with respect to tangent, even though the connection is mathematically obvious. And I'm the one supposed to be doing the wriggling? Joshuaschroeder 21:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you're using an inappropriate definition. We're not talking geometry here, we're talking english. Ungtss 22:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The english definition of tangent is taken from geometry. That is its root. If geometry is inappropriate to use to understand the definition, then obviously you have a different set of standards of propriety than I. Joshuaschroeder 22:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The English language dictionary definition of tangential leaves no room for your nonsense. tangential refers to relevence, not quality. "Go off on a tangent." Doesn't matter whether your tangent is good or bad -- it's a tangent because it's irrelevent. Ungtss 22:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Going off on a tangent is rarely good. But maybe you are of the opinion that irrelevence might be good. Joshuaschroeder 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your argument was that the argument was tangential because it was bad. i've shown you that there's no link, because arguments of tangential by virtue of being irrelevent, nor poor. You've gone off into nonsense-land again. Ungtss 00:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that you care, but my argument was that it was tangential because it was a poor analogy -- by which I mean the analogy is improperly made due to a superficial similarity invented by, apparently, the author of the book in question. The intersection of the argument and the analogy occured at the invention of the similarity. The tangent is the attempt to say that this describes a rational argument for theistic realsim. Joshuaschroeder 00:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sort of tangential"ness" does not justify deletion. Ungtss 00:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Analogies are good to include when there are long, convoluted arguments and descriptions being made that are hard to follow. This is often why you and I include them in our discussions, to help illustrate our points in reference to equivocation by the other voice in the discussion. In the case of an article, there doesn't seem to be much of a point of including this analogy, especially if it is so easily criticized from so many different angles.

As I see it, theistic realism is an important article to have because it illustrates a fundamental difference between the creationist/IDer and the scientists: that is that the additional assumption of the existence of a creator as opposed to an endeavor which makes no such assumption. In the larger scheme of the "creation-evolution controversy" and the dialog between science and religion, this is an important starting point. To scientists, Johnson is easily dismissed because he is telling scientists how they must do their work without being a scientist himself. I could go on and on about the relevence of this article. I'm glad it exists

But including the "engine" analogy is confusing the issue. First of all, there isn't anything confusing about the definition. Secondly, there really isn't much of a back-and-forth going on with respect to definitions. The opening definition is easily taken to be quite straightforward. What possible elaboration does the engine analogy bring to the article? How does it help elucidate the point of the article in the first place? When writing a book on the subject, I could see the utility of including such analogies, but we're not writing a book on the subject, we're writing an article. We should be as straightforward as possible. Bringing a seemingly random analogy onboard in the opening paragraph is not helpful in describing the position, it either takes the form of a bit of descriptive propaganda or it will begin to accumulate arguments, opposition, counterarguments, etc. as editors come through and poke the analogy apart.

I could have done something similar to the editor who added the bits about fractals, etc. onto the paragraph. I can think of any number of different ways to look at the analogy as problematic. But this is going to get us totally bogged down in nuanced argumentation and, frankly, discussion that are only tangentially related to the article. Better that we just describe the term and get it over with. Why put theistic realism through such a wringer? As it is right now, the opening paragraphs give a completely honest description of the topic without appealing to arguments that are either so nuanced as to be causing thousands of words to be written on a talkpage or so irrelevent as to bring the quality of the article down.

My interest is making the best article that we possibly can. Sometimes that means editting out superfluous bits even though they excite the fancies of some of the editors. When I was writing the Big Bang I found that there were a lot of things I just couldn't include for the sake of brevity, clarity, and concise writing. That's all I'm advocating for right now. I hope you take the time to consider my argument.

Joshuaschroeder 01:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One-sided debate?

I would like to engage Pollinator on his claims that I am "rewriting" my opponents viewpoints.

I decline to engage in a point-by-point debate of all the picayune points with you, which would be fruitless. The issue is that you see this as a debate, in which you must religiously defend evolutionism, as I've watched you do on numerous occasions. Your technique is to drown the position you oppose with a constant barrage of criticism. When you cannot "win" in that way, you rewrite the position you oppose, so you can argue against a straw man. (I have to give you credit for persistance.)

Why do creationists have to be discredited, associated with loonies, mocked, humiliated, and driven out of the schools?

If evolution is science; if it is "fact" as you say, why can't it stand up on its own. You won't win by destroying the opposition. You win by convicing the opposition; something which you and the other evangelistic evolutionists aren't doing with the propaganda devices you are now using.

If the creationists are right, and God has revealed himself, God is probably amused at your arrogant, but ardent self-created religion. If the creationists are wrong, what does it matter if you can or can't evangelize everyone to your point of view?

If the truth is somewhere in between, that there is a God who used evolution as His means of creating, then you are still blowing in the wind.

Why don't you relax? Pollinator 18:36, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

A nice impassioned essay, Pollinator, but it doesn't deal with the points of the article which you wholesale reverted. You seem to have bowed out of the discussion. Very well. Whenever you feel like joining the editorial process, you will be welcome. You asked why we should have to discredit creationism in Wikipedia. The answer is simple: creationists themselves rely on a self-defined oppositional role to mainstream science just like any other pseudoscience under the sun. Since creationism is discredited, we have an obligation in an encyclopedia to show this. We also have an obligation to be careful in how we describe creationist positions, neither giving them a soapbox nor removing common argumentation. Reporting on creationism does not mean we give free reign to any fly-by-night suggestion of analogy, argument, or fact -- regardless of whether it is published or not. Joshuaschroeder 19:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following things should be considered:

1) Wikipedia has one viewpoint, that of an encyclopedia. No part of no article can be said to be off-limits to editting.

2) I have tried to be reasonable with Ungtss (the editor of the article who is trying to impose his own POV). As it currently stands he wants to have a "counterpoint" defense against the criticisms section. This is unacceptable because there will be no end to the point-counterpoint style of an article. If he wants to make points, let him do it in the article itself.

3) Two of the arguments are not only specious, they're based on poor research on the part of Ungtss. I have explained this all above.

Therefore, it is unreasonable for you to revert the edit which has added quality to the page. Joshuaschroeder 04:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<1) Wikipedia has one viewpoint, that of an encyclopedia. No part of no article can be said to be off-limits to editting.>>

all of wikipedia is off-limits to pov warrior editing, which is what you are doing here.

I disagree that this is POV warring. Start an RfC if you think otherwise. Joshuaschroeder 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC is a last resort for most people, although some editors do enjoy using them to gather the mob together for a witchburning. Ungtss 16:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2) I have tried to be reasonable with Ungtss (the editor of the article who is trying to impose his own POV). As it currently stands he wants to have a "counterpoint" defense against the criticisms section. This is unacceptable because there will be no end to the point-counterpoint style of an article. If he wants to make points, let him do it in the article itself.

slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. there is no need for endless this and that. you raised issues in your unattributed, pov, personal research criticisms section that were not addressed in the article. it is appropriate to address them in a brief rebuttal following your arguments. Ungtss 05:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that this is a slippery slope. I'm claiming that if we follow courtroom procedure, for example, there will conceivably be an endless stream of rebuttals. What should we call the next section? Criticism of defense? No. It's editorally better to change the main article to reflect the defenses and keep the criticism section for clarity and brevity sake. Joshuaschroeder 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is the essence of a slippery slope arguments. there is no need for an endless stream of rebuttals. You raised issues not addressed in the article. The article cannot anticipate your every nonsense argument. It is appropriate to have a brief rebuttal following your nonsense argument. Ungtss 16:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The arguments made were addressed in the article. Joshuaschroeder 16:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No they were not. You made specific cliche arguments from philosophical naturalism that were not addressed in the article. reality, schroeder. come back. Ungtss 20:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess by "cliche" you mean that they are either trite or overused arguments. In either case, if they aren't used in this article, they really aren't overused in the article are they? More than that, the section is specifically "scientific crticism of theistic realism". It's related to the article in that it is talking about theistic realism. You may think it isn't, and you made three distinct arguments to that effect. Two of those arguments are included in my version. A third remains stagnated above. Joshuaschroeder 21:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<Two of the arguments are not only specious, they're based on poor research on the part of Ungtss. I have explained this all above.>>

and perhaps your specious guilt by association fallacy with the flat earthers (who do not call themselves "flat earth creationists," despite your habit of renaming them everywhere you insert them) should be deleted as well? Ungtss 05:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, this isn't a guilt by association because the conceit leads directly to a flat Earth given the Flat Earther's particular brand of theism. Joshuaschroeder 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flat Earth is not a brand of theism any more than Communism is a brand of Atheism. You've resorted to absolute nonsense again. Ungtss 16:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certain kinds of communism are a brand of atheism (though not all communism). Since the Flat Earth society believes in the theistic conceit, they are a brand of theism. Joshuaschroeder 16:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pull that reasoning on somebody who thinks sometime. See how far it gets you. Ungtss 16:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, when you run out of arguments you resort to personal attacks? Joshuaschroeder 16:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. That was a suggestion that you take a poll and ask people whether your argument follows: whether flat earthism is a type of theism. try it. see what happens. Ungtss 16:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was an insinuation that I don't think -- a very poor show. Joshuaschroeder 16:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm waiting for you to ask someone -- anyone -- if they think it's possible to say, with a straight face, that flat earthism is a type of theism, as you stated above. Ungtss 17:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As defined on the Flat Earth Society page, the belief in the Flat Earth is derived from a particular brand of biblical literalism which is a derivative of a type of theism. Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your error, which you stand by despite its status as total lunacy, is that because two ideas are derived from a common principle (biblical literalism) that one is a type of the other. it's laughable, because of the absurd results to which it leads, such as defining transsubstantiation and the resurraction as creationism, or (now, even better, flat earthism as a form of theism!). your argument is flawed at a fundamental level, and despite explaining it to you in a myriad of ways over months, you still refuse to deal with reality. if i had lacked reason to doubt the credibility of scientists before coming to wikipedia, observing the unbelievable stream of non-sequiturs has led me to trust you for nothing, and verify everything, because most of what you say is patent nonsense, and you don't seem to notice, or care. Ungtss 20:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have an independent evaluation of the status of the argument being "total lunacy"? Or is this just your opinion? Regardless, the fact is that the same principles of theistic realism are used by Flat Earthers, Modern geocentrists, and Creation Scientists to come up with pseudoscience. I'm not saying that one need be a Flat Earther in order to believe in theistic realism. I'm simply saying that there are those who use the argument to promote pseudoscience and there really isn't any internal standard within theistic realism that can show that their pseudoscientific claims should be thrown out of consideration. Joshuaschroeder 20:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Independent evaluation? Ask anybody. (in other words, no, Ungtss doesn't have independent evaluation. Joshuaschroeder 21:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)) You said that flat earthism was a type of theism. it's arguments like these that remind me that although i may be in the minority, the majority has a habit of making no sense at all. Flat Earth has nothing to do with theistic realism, period. it's a totally separate phenomenon, with a whole different set of arguments. but you don't care. you're here to be the thought police, and police thought you will. Ungtss 20:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The arguments made by Flat Earthers are that we can only understand nature in terms of the idealization that God created the universe. Further, they believe the description of how it was created is in the Bible. To them, the Bible indicates a Flat Earth. They are taking the theistic realist position primarily.

The fact that positions are often adopted concurrently does not make one position of type of another. period. transsubstantiation is not a type of theism, no matter how hard you try to make it so. Ungtss 21:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never talked about concurrent adoption of positions. I never said anything about transsubstantiation, and I don't know that I have ever heard of anyone being described as a "Transubstantiationist". Catholic, yes. Of course, Catholicism is a kind of theism. Joshuaschroeder 21:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your ad hominems are getting tired, Ungtss. You have yet to offer any alternatives to my edits other than throwing proverbial tantrums. It's diverting, to be sure, but we aren't going to get anywhere as long as you avoid making substantive justifications vis-a-vis your edits. You make a big deal of requiring justification for my edits, but for some reason your edits are supposed to be accepted at face value because they're "attributed". That double standard of yours conveniently supports your own claims to martyrdom (ala "lynched babies"), but does nothing to attempt to bridge any understanding. You accuse those godless heathen evilutionists of being "thought police" (a weird concept to be sure in an encyclopedia that is freely open to anyone's edits), but quickly resort to combative, argumentative language whenever it suits you. You have no credibility in this regard and that's why you've found it hard to get people to agree with you. Suddenly, Wikipedia is a society that is diametrically opposed to you and bent on malligning your type. Few people are buying this, Ungtss, and there are really only a few people who are willing to engage in your nonsense. Why don't you let those of us actually interested in writing an encyclopedia write the encyclopedia? Joshuaschroeder 21:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sir, the vote is two to one against you. You are the minority opinion, and the text of this talkpage demonstrates how phenomenally wrong you are, in arguing that the fact that an argument is bad makes it tangential, the argument that flat earthism is a type of theism, and the idea that you can insert personal research criticisms into an article without allowing a brief rebuttal of your new points. Quacks like a duck, man. Ungtss 21:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sir, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. The text of this talkpage has shown how much you like to argue, Ungtss, but shows nothing in the way of you providing justification for your edits. Not even a single attempt other than to claim that they are "attributed". Joshuaschroeder 21:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

on wikipedia, "attributed and relevent" beats "josh thinks it's dumb" everytime. Ungtss 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's that way, but if you do, perhaps you should consider whether it's worth your while to continue. Joshuaschroeder 21:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

APologies. i failed to differentiate between the way things should be and the way things are. according to policy, it should be that way. in reality, articles simply reflect the balance of bigotries. Ungtss 21:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

twoversions

Since two editors support the version with the rebuttal and only one supports the version without it, i placed the minority version on the "other page" of the twoversions tag. Ungtss 20:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a unilateral invention of policy and I do not consider it legitimate. Joshuaschroeder 21:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i think it has more support in policy and reason that "schroeder gets whatever he wants, whenever he wants it, no matter what anybody else thinks." Ungtss 21:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you're gearing up for a discussion of policy. That doesn't belong on this page, though. Joshuaschroeder 21:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, "Schroeder's views" are the only thing that belong here, on the page, or anywhere. Ungtss 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, this seems to be an indication of your agreement with me. Joshuaschroeder 21:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow. just when i thought you couldn't make less sense. Ungtss 21:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an incomplete sentence, Ungtss. It's nice you've decided to get all literary on the talkpage. Let me know when you're ready to get back to editting the encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i've been trying to do that for months. quit limiting articles to your pov and we'll start getting somewhere. and incidentally, talkpages are conversational. it's improper to use contractions in writing too, but that doesn't stop either of us. Ungtss 22:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there justification for a defense section?

There were three distinct arguments made in the defense section. The ID argument clearly can be included above. The strawman argument can be addressed in the criticism section itself. The supernatural being natural argument needs to be rewritten if it is to be included in the article at all since it seems to be critiquing a notion of supernatural that no one holds to and isn't evinced in the article. Therefore it is submitted that the section is not needed. Furthermore, in the interest of maintaining a manageable style to the article, it is better to have a description of the topic and criticisms but no rebuttals since this would only encourage counterrebuttals and counter-counterrebuttals, etc. As it stands right now, there are good rebuttals for each of these arguments in the defense section, but rather than make a new section, I have reincorporated the rebuttals into the main body of the article. Joshuaschroeder 22:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of the above points have been addressed on this talkpage repeatedly. Your repetition of them is a tactic to make it appear that i am reverting without justification. i will not be drawn into more filibustering, and i will not allow you to pretend i have not obliterated your nonsense. the rebuttal section is brief and to the point, and addresses points made in your personal research, unattributed, pov criticism section that are not brought up in the article. Ungtss 23:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Restoring my 3rr notification. you violated the 3RR, schroeder. Would you like to revert your edit, or shall i report you to the admin noticeboard so you can have your 24 hour block? Ungtss 23:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll continue editting the article. It seems you do not have the desire to engage in this. Joshuaschroeder 23:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Superchav

Thank you, superchav. your edits are excellent. Ungtss 23:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New article version

So I have made a new edit. I have done the following things:

1. I have editted down a lot of Johnson's writings. Trying to be as concise as possible
2. I have removed much of the reference to creationist argumentation against science. Theistic realism is about making an assumption about God a priori in scientific investigation. Specific creationist attacks on science are irrelelvent.
3. I have removed the quotes from Psalms, Plato, Chesterton, and Bergman. The first two are discussed above. Chesterton is removed because he is talking about an inconsistency argument with respect to the folly of philosophy in general which is different from making an argument about theistic realism. Theistic realism does not hold that inconsistencies are okay -- in fact such a belief is attacked in the theistic naturalism section. Bergman is talking about the antecendents to creationism rather than theistic realism and so his stuff was removed. Thomism is appropriate and I added a few sentences illustrating why.

Joshuaschroeder 23:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the quotes is fine. however, you did not "trim" johnson's quotes -- you gutted them, and removed the rebuttal again against a 3:1 vote against you. Ungtss 23:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can explain point by point how I gutted them, that would be appreciated. I am trying to make things concise. Explanations for why a particular cut is a "gut" would be appreciated. Joshuaschroeder 23:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you justify the gutting? Why is the text you're deleting not pertinent? Ungtss 23:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can point out a problematic edit, I will happily justify it. Joshuaschroeder 23:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your problematic edits include removing a concise description of the idea from the first sentence, the removal of chunks of johnson quotes without any explanation whatsoever, and the deletion of a brief rebuttal section 3 editors support. Ungtss 23:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do you have any specific criticisms? I haven't removed the description at all. Since Johnson coined the phrase, he should be given credit up fron. I have removed "chunks" of quotes that were not directly relevent to theistic realism's description, more of just Johnson going off on a tirade. The rebuttal section has been retained in the main body of the article with the exception of the supernatural bit which is an argument based out of your own confusion. Joshuaschroeder 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the first sentence as you've written it does not explain what TR is. you have not explained why the chunks are not relevent, only repeatedly deleted them, and your view of the validity of the supernatural argument does not justify its deletion. Ungtss 00:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

paragon of npov.

look at superchav's approach, schroeder. he is doing npov. he's adding counterarguments and balancing, rather than censoring. He is moving articles toward your pov without censoring. Ungtss 00:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from superchav about what he thinks about this. Joshuaschroeder 00:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why my version is superior

Below are the arguments, laid out bare for all to see. Please comment. Joshuaschroeder 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your edits have stripped the content from the arguments, and taken them out of context. however, i realized around 9 tonight that i'd wasted my entire day arguing with you to no avail, because you have no interest in npov or article quality. i know that in training children, the worst thing a parent can do is give in to anti-social behavior, but (thank god) i'm not your parent. i've taken creationism articles off my watchlist again. vandalize at will. Ungtss 01:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Ungtss is leaving the editorial discussion, I will remove the twoversion tag. Joshuaschroeder 02:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro

First of all, we need to be upfront about Johnson's invention of the term. This article wouldn't exist if Johnson hadn't coined the idea. That's why we need to be upfront in the defintion. I've also explicitly mentioned Intelligent Design argumentation which was only obliquely included in Ungtss' version.

The rest of the definition in Ungtss' version are in my version with the exception of the now very weird "engine" paragraph which reads like a jaunt through a conversation between a typically argumentative Johnson and a very straightforward person who doesn't understand why Johnson jumps to conclusions without considering facts first. Of course, we need not include this discussion at all because theistic realism is well-defined without reference to the absurd conversation.

Scriptural basis

Included is an explanation for why a scriptural basis is included in the first place. After all, this is "theistic" realism not "Christian" realism.

tr vs. pn

I have included above the first quote an explanation for why the article is suddenly talking about evolution. It is, of course, Johnson's own stone to grind.

The second quote has a bunch of redundant stuff removed. We've already established that Johnson is oppositional to "modern science" and that he believes in Romans 1. So there's no reason to state that. The bit about it being opposed to all major monotheistic religions is redundant with the discussion of a creator being a prerequisite.

The third quote starts out completely equivocally. It doesn't even make sense. What does "Because in our universe experience unintelligent material processes do not create life" mean anyway? The mystery of life as a basis for theistic realism is sufficiently explained in the remainder of the quote.

These "justifications" are not justifications. They are your personal opinion on the quality of the quotes. Your personal opinion on the quality of the reasoning in the quotes is irrelevant. this article is about theistic realism, not what schroeder thinks makes sense in theistic realism. You truly have a knack for contriving pseudojustifications for ludicrous actions. 128.192.124.90 15:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ungtss. The first quote is unaltered except for a refinement of the explanation for why the article is talking about evolution, so that doesn't seem to be a problem. The second quote is completely redundant. Romans 1 is mentioned in the scripture section and the remainder of the quote that is removed is redundant from the aspect that the creator is already assumed. You need to be reminded that just because a quote is attributed does not mean it must be included. You are very fond of criticizing edits that try to make things more concise without being explicit about what is lacking in the justification.

The third quote's first sentence was not only poorly worded, it is perfectly well-explained in the rest of the quote. If you can make an argument for why this isn't the case, make it. I am at least making the attempt to justify my edits, while you just attack those justifications and don't make any of your own. Joshuaschroeder 15:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We need to ask ourselves, what is the purpose of including the quotes in this article? The answer should be that we need to describe the ideas behind theistic realism. Anything else would be overkill. To that end, I have identified three points that Johnson makes: 1) Naturalistic evolution is fundamentally opposed to religious conceits, 2) this leads to "intellectual futility" and propaganda, 3) since it is obvious God created the universe and life, the only conclusion is that scientists are conspiring to remove him. What other points are trying to be made and how do these quotes not make them? Joshuaschroeder 16:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your "points" are incomplete. The quotes say more than that. The quotes provide context and meaning -- they show how he views theistic realism as stemming directly from the philosophy underpinning the bible. they show how naturalism is directly opposed to the theistic world view, because while naturalism says that theism is the death of the mind, theism says that naturalism is the death of the mind. These points are essential to the argument. That is why you are deleting them. Pollinator and I support the full quotes against your stripped-down version. Please leave them. Ungtss 21:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your criticism is ineffective. If the quotes say "more than that", tell me what we need to include. Be specific. Joshuaschroeder 23:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read what i wrote. i was very detailed. <<The quotes provide context and meaning -- they show how he views theistic realism as stemming directly from the philosophy underpinning the bible. they show how naturalism is directly opposed to the theistic world view, because while naturalism says that theism is the death of the mind, theism says that naturalism is the death of the mind.>> Leave it, schroeder. Ungtss 23:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

criticism

Finally, I have added an additional section about "design arguments" specifically. I have also included the strawman argument in the criticism section.

defenses

There are three arguments for defense. The first argument is included in the intro. The second argument in its current incarnation doesn't make sense in terms of the definition of supernatural and the context of the discussion of suprenatural in the above criticism. The last argument is incorporated directly into criticism since it would be pointless to have a separate section. The section is thus removed.

THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPLICATION

There are several articles on Wikipedia - all attributed to Johnson who lacks any qualifications about the subject that he is writing upon. He is a member of the Discovery Institute and both are supported by a man with deep pockets following his own agenda. All of this is being palmed off as a many sided mass movement when in reality it is all coming from one financier and his own sockpuppets who in turn have their own disciples spewing this stuff all over Wikipedia like weeds. Like weeds these articles need killing off to see if there are any plants worth saving among the growth of words. By the way, there is no such thing as "theistic realism", because theism is a belief in God and realism relates to physical reality. Reality and belief are not the same thing. What is known is provable. What is believed about God remains a belief that cannot be proved. MPLX/MH 19:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page needs to be changed

I have done some more research on theistic realism. The following things need to be recognized:

1) It is an idea made up by Johnson. It needs to be not only explicit in this, but also clearly delineated as to why. 2) Those that support "theistic realism" do so because they support Johnson. There is no school of thought involving it. There is no such thing as "theistic realists". There are only Johnson-supporters. 3) While certain philosohpical arguments are connected, this idea is not the result of any culmination of thinking -- it is the result of one man's idea about the way the universe works.

We need to consider the following:

1) Does the article deserve to exist? As it is the opinion of Johnson and only referenced as such, maybe it should be merged with Johnson's works. 2) If the article does continue to exist, should it remain a Johnson quotemine? After all, this is an encyclopedia -- not a soapbox. 3) We need some more criticism from the faith-based side. There are a lot of people who disagree with Johnson from YECs to IDers to scientists. We need to be clear that this is a very MINORITY opinion.

Please comment as to whether we should remove the article altogether or merge. Thank you. Joshuaschroeder 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

I have added a totally disputed tag in the hopes that we can bring some people in here to help with the controversy surrounding this page. I still dispute many of the ways information is presented on this page (even in my version) and I don't even know if the article should exist. I also dispute whether this article conforms to NPOV. I think the extensive Johnson quotes are problematic in this regard and the insistence on Ungtss to balk at the inclusion of what he admitted were common criticisms without his personal research essay opposing them is enough evidence for me to declare that a controversy along these lines exists. Let's hope we can resolve this editting dispute. Joshuaschroeder 01:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As usual, the above is all your personal opinion with no basis in policy. there is no reason to slice the content out of quotes, no reason to censor a brief rebuttal of your personal research essay, and no reason to reword the text to take an anti-TR pov. The vote is 2:1 against you, schroeder. leave it on the majority version until you can provide justification for your edits. Ungtss 04:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's put this a different way. Let's say you were teaching a class about Intelligent Design and wanted a decent overview of Johnson's argument for the class. The encyclopedia should be a sort of "cliff notes" that hits all salient points once and only once, is easy to read, and contains all the content related to the issue. There is definitely criticism offered by various groups such as talkorigins, talkdesign, and panda's thumb. I offered a summary of their criticism rather than a rehashing of quotes. This is a better way of writing an article than including an excessive number of quotes that basically say the same thing. There is no reason to leave a bad article in wikipedia and I will continue to edit it. Joshuaschroeder 15:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) why are you deleting segments of quotes describing TR, but adding your own personal research, on a topic about TR, not "schroeder's views on the universe?" This page is about TR. We should make sure we adequately describe it. Why are you deleting segments of quotes that attempt to do that?

You have offered absolutely nothing in the way of argumenation as to what precisely is needed. You instead revert and don't dialogue. I am willing to hear you out as to why a particular part of a particular quote is needed, but all you do is offer vague criticism of the entire editorial endeavor rather than specific criticisms of specific removals. Joshuaschroeder 15:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2) why are you changing "challenges" philosophical naturalism to "attacks" philosophical naturalism? is that npov?

Johnson is clear in his writings that he is fighting a "war" against materialism, Darwinism, etc. It is more NPOV to describe it that way. Joshuaschroeder 15:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3) why are you deleting a brief rebuttal to your personal research criticisms? Ungtss 04:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I've said time and again, we should include any rebuttal in the actual article for sanity's sake. Joshuaschroeder 15:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4) in short, why are you deleting everything that has anything to do with explaining why people ascribe to TR, and replacing it with "why schroeder thinks this is hooey?" Ungtss 04:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's simply a lying exaggeration that I'm deleting "everything that has anything to do with explaining why people ascribe to TR". Ungtss, you have maintained an article that basically is a mouthpiece for Johnson's opinions and is not a reasonable explanation of his opinion and the criticisms thereof. Joshuaschroeder 15:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not deleted any criticisms. you are deleting first-hand accounts of his opinions. i am not maintaining a mouthpiece. you are refusing to allow fully cogent npov account of this idea, according to those promoting it, by deleting all cogent argument from any page related to it. Ungtss 21:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Upon a check on [[2]] (0 hits) and google (A mere 347 hits, mostly propaganda), it seems that this subject doesn't exist. My initial reaction is to either delete or merge with intelligent design. Bensaccount 01:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, Bensaccount. We might cite the deletion of Creation anthropology as good case-evidence for the removal of this. I have to admit, though, that Philip Johnson does use the coined term in his book. Is there Wikipedia policy that can help us on this? Joshuaschroeder 01:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

none that can help you. Wikipedia:Importance is not policy, and google numbers mean nothing. look at Wikipedia:VfD and see if this page fits any of those criteria. Ungtss 04:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Justifications

Here is the justifications for the differences [3]. Please comment individually.

intro

We need to be clear that it is Johnson and not just a general “idea” that many ascribe to. Ungtss’ does not make this clear up front and therefore is no good. Here is my proposal:

Theistic realism is a philosophical justification for intelligent design first coined by Phillip E. Johnson in his book, Reason in the Balance According to Johnson, true knowledge must begin with the acknowledgment of God as creator because he believes that the unifying characteristic of the universe is that it was created by God. Theistic realism, therefore, relies on a God that is real, personal, and acting in the world, through mechanistic creationism.

Theistic realism is an attack on philosophical naturalism. To Johnson, any attempt to understand nature without acknowledging the creator is doomed to fail. As he and his supporters describe it, theistic realism holds that the universe and life cannot be explained completely naturalistically.

This is a concise and well-worded introduction that doesn’t step on anybody’s toes as far as I can tell. If you disagree, please state your disagreement and offer an edit to it. We are going to have to get rid of the introduction as Ungtss’ version has it because it doesn’t deal with Theistic Realism as an idea of Johnson’s but rather as a commonly held belief.

my version stood for a month, and you have not articulated a single reason yours is better. yours makes the intro very awkward -- instead of defining TR in the first sentence, it gives context which is secondary to the idea. it muddles the intro, which, tho that is your goal, is not a goal consistent with wikipedia policy. please explain why your new intro is better than the old one before making controversial edits. Ungtss 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason this is better is because it states Johnson's involvement with the idea upfront. This is an absolute necessity since Johnson is the reason this article exists. Theistic reason is a philosophical justification for intelligent design. Maybe we could be more specific. Would you agree to "a philosophical justification for intelligent design based on belief in a God that acts in nature"? I'm willing to reword it if you think it is awkward, but the present intro does not seem to indicate this at all. Please tell me substantively what is awkwardly worded about the above introduction. Please let me know so we can work out an agreement. Joshuaschroeder 22:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

scriptural basis

Added:

This is somewhat in contrast with the overall aims of the intelligent design movement. Johnson lies on the more creationist side of the movement, advocating for a connection between intelligent design and Christianity that certain others in the movement (notably Stephen Meyer) have tried to avoid.

We need to include this because it illustrates the novelty of Johnson’s argumentation. It is not a commonly held belief by any means.

it is not novel. it is as old as time. creationists have two goals -- one for public schools and one for society generally. ID arguments are for public schools -- the establishment clause requires it, and everybody recognizes that, including ICR. but "neocreationism" takes place outside the schools, and that's what johnson and everybody else are doing. it's not new. it's old. Ungtss 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it. Does this make more sense? Joshuaschroeder 22:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed parts of quotes

Naturalistic science tells us something completely different from what Romans 1 tells us, something that contradicts not just the Genesis account but the fundamental principle of creation that is the common ground of all creationists -- Christian, Jewish, and Islamic.

After having just above mentioned Romans 1 and its justification for inclusion in the article and never having mentioned the Genesis account anywhere in the article, this Johnson quote about what “naturalistic science” tells us suddenly appears. We already have gone over that Johnson has beliefs about what “naturalistic science” tells us with regards to Romans 1 and Genesis as an account isn’t relevant to the article because there is no explanation of Genesis being important to theistic realism anywhere in the article. The quote also isn’t talking about theistic realism to this point but rather creationism. It isn’t dealing with the fundamental principle but rather the derivative. This quote could be included in the creation science article, perhaps, but not in this article. It is inappropriate to the main point of the article which is that theistic conceit is necessary for understanding the material universe.

you are defining the purpose of the article to serve your purposes, and there is no reason to do so. the purpose of this article is to describe TR and how johnson contrasts it with naturalistic science in his book. you're deleting things that allow explanation of that. Ungtss 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explain to me how simply removing the references to Romans and all creationists removes the description of the contrast. Joshuaschroeder 22:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because in our universe experience unintelligent material processes do not create life, Christian theists know that Romans 1:20 is also true: 'Ever since the creation of the world God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made

For similar reasons as above, this is removed. The first phrase isn’t even grammatically correct and Ungtss hasn’t answered that problem even though I pointed it out days ago. The rementioning of Romans is completely unnecessary (see above). We should avoid this repetition.

it is not repetition. it draws a connection between the verses above and the argument below -- you are simply trying to take it out of context to make it sound like nonsense. that sentence is essential to the context of the verse. grammar is irrelevent. Ungtss 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, "because in our universe experience unitelligent material processes do not create life" doesn't make any sense. It is a meaningless statement. We shouldn't be including such awkwardly worded nonsense. The least we can do is include things that make sense. Secondly, how is the connection not drawn by the scriptural connections above? Joshuaschroeder 22:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thomism

Completely removed unless you can offer actual proof that Johnson considers it antecedent.

why not read the book and find out for yourself? you might be a more useful editor if you actually knew what you were writing about. Ungtss 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and you might be a more useful editor if you knew a lick about science. But no matter, I read the book yesterday and am waiting for your response since Thomism does not play a major role in his development of the subject. Joshuaschroeder 22:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Points, if relevant and not discussed, ‘’should’’ be included in the above article.

points cannot be addressed in the main portion because you are addressing points beyond the scope of the book in your personal research essay. i am trying to compromise and be reasonable by allowing you to directly break the rules in that case. why do you insist on breaking the rules in every case, by not allowing a rebuttal to your personal research essay that goes way beyond the scope of theistic realism?

It has become apparent to me that this article has become a personal crusade for you. I am going to put it up for VfD. Joshuaschroeder 22:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

as expected. the article describes an idea promulgated by a published author clearly and concisely -- an idea that frightens you. why wouldn't you vfd it? Ungtss 22:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You inability to compromise is tiring and absurdist. Joshuaschroeder 22:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

compromise? how can one compromise with "all of this needs to be deleted because i think it doesn't make sense" and breaks the 3rr against multiple editors to get what he wants, and when all that fails, he resorts to his umpeenth vfd? Ungtss 23:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can one compromise with a third-rate editor who makes frequent use of personal attacks on the talk page, pretends to be sole arbiter of the NPOV policy, insists on quoting large swathes of creationist propaganda, mindlessly reverts on a daily basis, and can't articulate reasons for making edits? Joshuaschroeder 23:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that's what i've been trying to figure out. except for one thing: he seems to be deleting cited, quoted creationist views from pages describing creationism, instead of adding them ... Ungtss 23:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the book?

Ungtss, riddly me this, did you read the book you cited? Are you certain it is talking about theistic realism from Johnson? I just got the book on reserve and will pick it up tomorrow from the library. Joshuaschroeder 23:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm at the library now, and just inserted a summary of the pertinent points. read it to your heart's content tomorrow. maybe this time you'll add something, instead of deleting everything in sight? Ungtss 00:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit on minimal theistic realism by byrne. hope it's to your liking. Ungtss 00:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just got back from the library--it is clear that the book in question has nothing to do with Johnson. He doesn't mention Johnson and Johnson doesn't mention him. This is a case of two different people coming up with similar terms for similar ideas, but not the same. Joshuaschroeder

the fact that the same term is used for similar ideas means the idea is bigger than johnson, just as i attempted to reflect in the article, and it should therefore be portrayed as such. Ungtss 02:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)