TheoEvo vs. ID — Hey, who started this anyway?

_{William Dembski

June 17, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Ken Miller compares ID proponents to “welfare queens” (go here) and Karl Giberson denounces ID proponents for “smearing” theistic evolutionists, citing this blog (go here).

Besides displaying desperation, these people have no evident sense of irony. Miller has for years been dipping his hand into the public till, which continues to underwrite sales of his textbooks.* And Giberson, in defending Miller and Francis Collins, seems to forget that they are ones charging ID proponents with threating America’s soul and future (go here).

So, it’s okay to for theoevos to cast ID in apocalyptic terms, but it’s not okay for IDers to call them on it. Give me a break. As Denyse O’Leary has put it, theistic evolution is a solution to a problem that no longer exists. Bankruptcy is hard. Get used to the pain.

——–
*Here are some quotes from seven of Miller’s biology textbooks, textbooks underwritten with your tax dollars. As you read these quotes, ask yourself where is the “theo” in Miller’s “theoevo.”

(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution israndom and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991)

(2) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (2nd edition, Prentice Hall, 1993)

(3) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 1995)

(4) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (4th edition, Prentice Hall, 1998)

(5) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (5th ed. Teachers Ed., Prentice Hall, 2000)

(6) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its
by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152

(7) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its
by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (2nd edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161

Comments

But, I don’t see the link between opposition to Singer and opposition to TE as a close one. I don't either and I hope you don't think that I feel that someone inclined to believe that God used evolution to create biodiversity can't be a true Christian. The point I'm making is that there are those who so zealously believe that one can't consider (much less accept) ID (much less YEC) and be a credible scientist that they are willing to use methods that can only be considered immoral (slander, economic threats etc.) to drive these people field. Further, I'm saying it is imperative for all persons of good will to confront those who do this to the point where it is recognized that this is not acceptable. Of course, it is, and must remain, perfectly acceptable to rebut ID with regard to methods and conclusions.tribune7_{June 20, 2008
June
06
Jun
20
20
2008
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PST}

If the choice offered is really that stark, tribune7, I'm definitely not choosing Singer. And, if someone's faith and morality depend on embracing YEC, I encourage them to stay where they are. The priorities implicit in your question are right. But, I don't see the link between opposition to Singer and opposition to TE as a close one. (Obviously, or I'd cease to think of myself as a TE.) My own sense is (and certainly many would not share it) that a lot of other things have been involved in getting to this point than simply evolution, or even simply naturalism. Just to throw out one fact, the churches' support for governments and the miliary in wartime, when so many people on both sides are praying for victory to the same God, has probably had a much greater influence on advancing secularism and even atheism than has evolution--even if evolution did make it possible, as Dawkins has famously said, to hold atheism in an "intellectually fulfilled" manner.Ted Davis_{June 20, 2008
June
06
Jun
20
20
2008
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PST}

Ted, Thank you for your answer but you didn't need three words (or a lot more actually) :-) It was "yes" you believe (and understand) that ID is not creationism. My point is, that for reasons such as these it is not hard to understand why many Christian scientists see ID as too close to YEC for comfort–and nearly all Christian scientists realize that YEC just isn’t true, so they keep their hands off of ID. Ted, I can understand someone wanting to avoid the topic because they don't like controversy or they don't have a passion for it, but I cannot understand the attacks. To make an attack or ally with an attack is at the very best showing willful ignorance. And that fact that YECers are not driven off this board is no excuse. It is true that YECers are happily tolerated here, BUT so are their critics. W/regard to culture wars, whose side would you rather be on? A YECer who believes that life is sacred and love is holy or Pete Singer who advocates infanticide?tribune7_{June 20, 2008
June
06
Jun
20
20
2008
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PST}

I want to respond now to this question, from tribune7 back up there somewhere: Do you believe that ID is not significantly different than “creationism”? In 3 words, tribune7, yes and no. You asked me this, I think, b/c I had said that one of the reasons that Christian scientists stay away from ID (and remember, here I was being a reporter, conveying what I am hearing; I am not a scientist myself) is that they think it "smells a lot like YEC," is how I put it. My own view is that ID is not YEC, and I've made that case in print at least twice. I believe that strongly, despite what most scientists think and what many other academics think. But most of those people don't know very much about the history of religion and science in this country, and they don't really understand what YEC really is. They don't, e.g. (to offer just one crucial example), understand that the YE part of YEC is driven substantially by the belief that a good God simply would not allow animal death before the fall of Adam & Eve. It's a subtlety that escapes the casual critic of creationism, but it's not a subtle point actually--without that belief, many creationists would be more open to an "old" universe and earth. But that's not part of the ID agenda, and that is just one very significant reason why ID is not "creationism" in the usual sense (ie, it is not just another form of YEC). It's not "creationism in a cheap tuxedo. And, the historians I know who actually work on the history of creationism do not believe this either. On the other hand, it's hard to convince many people that ID is not creationism, for many reasons, but one important reason is that the tone and tactics employed by some ID leaders sound and look pretty familiar. For YECs, evolution is the worst case scenario, in terms of its perceived cultural and religious consequences. For the late Henry Morris, evolution was literally Satanic--given by Satan to Nimrod at Babel. The bottom line is that, at least since Bryan's time in the 1920s, many Christians have demonized evolution, blaming it for all manner of social and spiritual ills, in much the same manner that Dawkins and company blame religion itself, or the very idea of God, for all manner of ills today. I would suggest, tribune7, as respectfully as I can, that one doesn't have to look too far to find a similar tone emanating from ID circles. And, one also finds a very similar strategy, when it comes to public education: just as YECs have tried to get evolution taught as a "theory," by which they really mean, "a mere theory that is little more than wishful thinking," (they do not mean a "theory" as in atomic theory or Newton's theory of gravitation), so ID's have tried to get evidence against evolution taught in biology classes. Please don't read what I just wrote as an implicit attack on "teaching the controversy." My views on that are more complicated than a simple inference to a conclusion, and I am not going further with that now. My point is, that for reasons such as these it is not hard to understand why many Christian scientists see ID as too close to YEC for comfort--and nearly all Christian scientists realize that YEC just isn't true, so they keep their hands off of ID. That isn't lacking backbone; it's just (from their point of view) good judgment. The culture wars do make it pretty hard to see the truth, and that cuts in all directions.Ted Davis_{June 20, 2008
June
06
Jun
20
20
2008
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PST}

fbeckwith: "For they are more accomplished, more successful, and more well-respected than any ID advocate anywhere. That’s harsh, I know. But it’s the truth." Agree with Dave Scott's response to this. Your statement reveals a most glaring ignorance. I appears you've never heard of about 3/4 of the worlds greatest "accomplished, successful and well respected" scientists. It also appears your units of measure for 'accomplished' etc., are all out of line with fact. You mistake mere notoriety and wealth with accomplishments, success and respect.Borne_{June 19, 2008
June
06
Jun
19
19
2008
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PST}

To rpf_ID: Your argument is not unreasonable. Many of the theistic evolutionists, when wearing their Darwinist hat, assert that God's attitude towards nature is "hands off". Yet, when wearing their Sunday hat, they have no problem believing that God (and Jesus) took a very interventionist attitude towards nature, as recorded in most of the books of the Bible from the Pentateuch onwards, and particularly in the New Testament, where natural laws are violated on an average of probably once per page. (For example, does not Denis Lamoreaux, who despises ID for introducing an "unscientific" discontinuity into nature, believe without embarrassment that Jesus walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, cursed the fig tree, and fed the five thousand?) Why the double standard regarding direct divine intervention, whereby it's OK to invoke divine intervention for historical miracles but taboo for pre-historic acts of creation of living things? It can't be that belief in divine intervention in nature would engender distrust in natural laws and thus render natural science impossible. If that were the case, then the New Testament would engender more distrust in the regularity of nature than Genesis or ID would, since the New Testament miracles are far more recent, and far more numerous, than the acts of creation recorded in Genesis, or required by most ID proponents. I suppose one possible answer is that some TEs don't believe in miracles at all, and interpret the NT as a book in which the miracles aren't meant to be taken literally. Yet the report of Ted Davis above suggests that this explanation probably would not cover most TEs, whom he regards as sincere believers in traditional Christianity. So what answer does that leave? Apparently the reason is ultimately esthetic. TEs simply don't like the style of a God who creates via sporadic miracles. They want a God who establishes regular laws and then leaves the universe to create life by itself. Well, they're entitled to their taste in Gods, but why should either other Christians or other scientists be required to share their taste? What if someone has a taste for Gods who alternately employ natural causes and supernatural interventions? What theological objection can there be to that? Especially since that appears to be the notion of God found in both the Bible and later Christian tradition? In short, I think you're right. The denial of "intervention" is inconsistently made. If you can believe in a living God who raised Lazarus and if you believe in a God who can heal your dying child (as Becke says many TEs do), you can easily believe in a God who intervened to produce the Cambrian explosion. In fact, for such people, it's illogical not to believe in such a God. There's a clash of world-views going on inside the head of every modern religious person, TE and ID proponents included. The modern side of us has been taught to regard nature as a closed system of impersonal causes. The religious side of us has been taught that nature is not an independent, autonomous entity, but a dependent and interactive one, one which always was and still is radically open and responsive to the divine personal will. Most of us accept a confused compromise between these two views of the world. That's understandable and forgivable, because the questions involved are very difficult for even the greatest minds to think through. But the TEs shouldn't be self-righteous about their particular confused compromise. They have no authority from either "science" or "theology" to declare the exact boundaries beyond which God may not have intervened in, or interacted with, nature. T.Timaeus_{June 19, 2008
June
06
Jun
19
19
2008
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PST}

Ted wrote: I agree with this: “there is no more need for intelligence in the creation of life than there is need for intelligence for a drop of water to fall to the ground by the action of gravity.” But that is only to say that neither life nor gravity would exist at all, without intelligence. Nor would we, to look for the intelligence behind both
Ted, First of all, thank you for standing up for ID proponents. I respect you even more for standing up for the rights of people you disagree with. That is very noble... I respect your position, and it is apparent we disagree. I can live with that... At issue with Ken Miller specifically is he gets on TV and labels people like myself and my associastes as anti-science welfare queens. I'm a science student at Johns Hopkins. I have pro-ID friends who are PhD candidates in molecular genetics at top notch schools, and who are fearful of their career because they are systematically being labelled as dangers to the scientific establishment.... The resentment you sense at UD toward Ken Miller is not primarily theological, IMHO, but directed toward his conduct and the culture of discrimination he promotes. It does not bother me so much that Michael Behe is not a creationist. Miller and Behe believe in common descent. But why is Behe beloved, and Miller despised? For that matter why is Berlinski (not even a Christian) beloved and Miller despised? The reason Miller and others are so disdained in the ID community is their eagerness to smear those who disagree with them,and to resort to false statements and fabrications in doing so. They do this in a manner that is perceived as threatening to the livelihood and dreams of aspiring ID proponents who aren't even deeply involved in the ID movement....this is the sort of resentment that won't be easily mended. This is almost like asking for the ID community to be enthusaistic about the behavior of criminals.scordova_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PST}

Ted, I will get my 2 cents in before it's time to go to bed. My assessment of the evolution debate is that it is looked on as one theory by the populous and even by many scientists, when in fact there should be a more compartmentalized view. As a starter, there should be three completely separate theories and maybe more. 1. Origin of Life - which Darwin and nearly all evolutionary biologists say is not part of evolution but yet many who write about it and study it will still use terms such as natural selection or survival of the fittest to describe how life arose from inanimate molecules. It is a completely separate issue with no good ideas as to how it could have happened. Yet many will pass off a solution as just around the corner. The RNA world is often spoken of like it is an established fact when in fact is a wild conjecture. 2. Macro evolution - I will not try to define it because no one has a good definition for it. Let's just say it is the origination of new complex and functional biological information through naturalistic mechanisms. That may not be the best definition for it but it indicates what we generally mean by macro evolution. As of today there is no reliable theory of how such complex and functional information can or has arisen, There is nothing that would be classified as science to explain this phenomena. Lots of conjecture or speculation but no reliable mechanism. Basically, biologist say because there was a predecessor there was a process from one form to another. And when there are no predecessors one is made up such as for the Cambrian phyla begging the question when such an organism is found that the hard part is to explain how the changes actually took place to form each phyla. Macro evolution would never meet any science standards ever proposed for any educational curriculum. 3. Micro evolution - This is the manipulation of current genomes through basic genetic processes of sexual reproduction, recombination, epigenetic processes, selection processes and other forms of changes to the current genomes and then prolonged by separation and environment changes. There are also slight changes to the gene pool of a population through occasional mutations, This process is well established and works on unicellular as well as multi-cellular organisms and leads to new varieties and occasionally new species without expanding or changing the current gene pool except for trivial additions. Often this process contracts a gene pool as separation and environmental pressures eliminate certain aspects of the gene pool through selection and drift or other processes. The results of the third process is all Darwin ever saw examples of on his voyage on the Beagle and all that has ever been demonstrated by biologists. Yet this process is used to infer or establish the second process and sometimes the first. It is the only thing that scientists can use as justification that macro evolution actually happened. Macro evolution has never been observed and is only inferred to have happened by imagined progressions not actually found in the fossil record. So when scientists defend naturalistic evolution they are really using the observed and proven mechanism of micro evolution to infer that macro evolution ever took place or that there was a process by which life originated. Nothing has ever been observed in either the first or second process. Life and fossils are there so a process is inferred but no credible mechanism has ever been demonstrated for either of these two processes. I suspect that many of the theistic evolutionists will disagree vehemently with my last two paragraphs but those who support ID believe that this is all the science justifies. In fact they believe this is what the science is shouting at us. Many will also argue that there is precious little to justify much change taking place in the third process but most who are the leaders of ID are willing to accept nearly all of the micro evolution theory. Many of us here would hold to naturalistic mechanisms for the first two processes if there were any credible information available to defend either as arising through naturalistic means. But we see none or any reasonable hint at any and believe that those who hold to naturalistic mechanism for these processes are doing so on faith alone which is the ironic thing because it is the ID supporters who are criticized as basing their beliefs on faith and accused as ignorant of science. How often have you heard that ID is not science? This is just my assessment of one part of the disagreement. When I express it to anyone who is pro Darwin, that is pro naturalistic evolution for all of life's history it is met with disdain but never really answered. We find it interesting that it is never really answered and ask why.jerry_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PST}

-----Ted Davis: "Nothing in the Bible says that God’s presence within and behind the universe has to be distilled from the present inadequacy of a particular scientific theory. And, neither Polkinghorne nor Gingerich nor I believes that God wants not to be seen." Ted, thanks for your response. The Scriptures are very clear on the fact that God’s “existence” is made evident by his creation. Put another way, The Bible teaches that God reveals himself in Scripture AND in nature. It has nothing to do with the “inadequacy of a particular scientific theory.” A design that cannot be detected can hardly be a revelation. That is exactly what St. Paul means when he says about those who deny the point that “they are without excuse.” When TE’s reject the Bible’s teaching that God’s “handiwork has been made manifest,” they are subordinating their Christianity to the Darwinism. That is their privilege, of course, but they ought to stop saying that they have reconciled two irreconcilable world views. ----"We have *seen* God, in the flesh–and, when we did, we did not like what we saw, denied His divinity, and put him to death." Your comment is unrelated to the subject under discussion. It has nothing to do with the proposition that the world was designed for discovery. When the great scientists were insisting that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” they were not talking about Christ’s passion, crucifixion, or resurrection. They were talking about God’s intent to leave clues about himself, a belief that came right out of the Scripture. -----"I also believe, secondarily, that the very existence and rationality of the universe cry out for a deeper explanation, and that the explanation of both is the fact (as I see it) that this crucified and resurrected man was also the maker of heaven and earth. But I don’t know how to prove any of that to someone who won’t believe it. Do you.” The Scriptural teaching about the intelligibility of the universe is an empirical statement. It speaks to the observable evidence, in design form, of a creator and his creation, meaning that it requires no faith. That is why St. Paul means when he says that “they are without excuse.” The Scriptural teaching about the “reasons” for the creation, or the “deeper explanation” about a crucified and resurrected man and his role as creator, is a question of faith and is, therefore, a different matter. You are accepting the theological teachings of the Bible, (God’s plan of salvation) but you are rejecting the empirical/philosophical teachings of the Bible (God’s revelation in nature). That is another way of saying that you are selectively picking and choosing those passages that you can fit in to your ideological framework. So you read into the Bible (eisegisis) rather than reading out of it (exigesis).StephenB_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PST}

Ted Theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms to begin with. Evolution is science. The predominant theory of it is lame science where probabilities are ignored because chance, by doctrine, is always the responsible mechanism. Chance is not evaluated. It's worshipped.DaveScot_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PST}

Now, to fix my incomplete post (65) for stephenB, here is the statement I was responding to: "We have two propositions: [A] the Bible teaches that design is detectable, that God revealed himself in nature, and that God wants to be discovered through nature. [B] TEs insist that design is NOT detectable, that God did NOT reveal himself in nature, and that God does NOT want to be discovered through nature. How do TEs reconcile [A] with [B], since they insist that they these two world views are compatible?" I apologize for any confusion I created.Ted Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PST}

DaveScot writes, "I know it’s harsh but scientists and academics in general don’t get a lot of respect outside their sheltered world. Heck, even Ann Coulter makes them look insignificant by each and every metric you named." But I think we both know that Frank was talking about expertise where it matters--namely, with the experts. What Ann Coulter thinks about cosmology matters to her readers, perhaps (and I am not one of them), but she don't know diddley about tensor calculus. If ID wants to get where it wants to go--namely, to overthrow "naturalism" (which can be defined in various ways, hence the quotation marks) -- then it will need to produce science that's better than the science that's already there. Phil Johnson and others have said that it's premature to expect ID to have a real alternative theory to teach in schools. (I was blasted some time ago here for saying that there is no alternative, but don't blame the messenger.) It will continue to be premature until Frank's comments are taken to heart, IMO.Ted Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PST}

Ted But, I don’t know how to *prove* any of that, to someone who won’t believe it. Do you? Therein lies the rub. I CAN prove that the genetic code is structured almost exactly like Morse code. There is nothing in the natural world except for DNA that is like Morse code. Why? Because both were designed by intelligent agents. Only intelligent agents create abstraction layers (symbols or tokens which represent something else). DaveScot_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PST}

I did something wrong here with the posting, b/c the quotes I thought I had inserted into my two recent posts didn't go in. The one by DaveScot is pretty obvious, but the one by scordova should be this: "I’ve come to realize that Darwinists on the whole believe evolution is as sound a scientific theory as gravity. As long as they believe that, they will believe there is no more need for intelligence in the creation of life than there is need for intelligence for a drop of water to fall to the ground by the action of gravity. They actually think Darwinism is scientifically sound…..and that God uses evolution like God uses gravity…" Sorry about that. I'm not used to this.Ted Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PST}

scordova (55) wrote: Basically right, scordova, IMO. The second sentence, however, I would push even harder, but much deeper. Speaking (again) for myself but also for many others, without God there is no world at all--not just no creation in the past, but no continuing existence for it now and in the future. There is no rationality in nature, no regularity, no nature at all. I agree with this: "there is no more need for intelligence in the creation of life than there is need for intelligence for a drop of water to fall to the ground by the action of gravity." But that is only to say that neither life nor gravity would exist at all, without intelligence. Nor would we, to look for the intelligence behind both.Ted Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PST}

Ted Historic biology is more like stamp collecting than science. The topic is design which is the bailiwick of engineers not biologists.DaveScot_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PST}

DaveScot wrote: If the topic is biology, however, that's one mighty big pimple.Ted Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PST}

StephenB, You wrote, My answer above, Stephen, is neither of these. There are other possible views here. Nothing in the Bible says that God's presence within and behind the universe has to be distilled from the present inadequacy of a particular scientific theory. And, neither Polkinghorne nor Gingerich nor I believes that God wants not to be seen. My own view, Stephen, is precisely the opposite. We have *seen* God, in the flesh--and, when we did, we did not like what we saw, denied His divinity, and put him to death. I also believe, secondarily, that the very existence and rationality of the universe cry out for a deeper explanation, and that the explanation of both is the fact (as I see it) that this crucified and resurrected man was also the maker of heaven and earth. But, I don't know how to *prove* any of that, to someone who won't believe it. Do you?Ted Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PST}

fbeckwith For they are more accomplished, more successful, and more well-respected than any ID advocate anywhere. That’s harsh, I know. But it’s the truth. You need to get out more. George W. Bush is an ID advocate and he's arguably the most powerful man in the world. Collins and Miller together don't amount to a pimple on his butt. I know it's harsh but scientists and academics in general don't get a lot of respect outside their sheltered world. Heck, even Ann Coulter makes them look insignificant by each and every metric you named. DaveScot_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PST}

For example, who was the genius who told Gulliermo Gonzales it was a good idea to remain a DI fellow and publish his book before he earned tenure? Maybe Gonzales is just an honest fellow who saw nothing wrong/immoral/anti-science in doing so, and trusted his fellow academics to respect his freedom to investigate and publish and to associate with those having a like view. I mean they always say the respect those things, right? Guess Gonzales knows better now. Once bitten, twice shy babe.tribune7_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PST}

Stephen: "TEs are both gutless and irrational." Maybe sincerily deceived: For those who have already read following this post before please disregard, this post is for all TE's who may be reading. --- Theistic Philosophy Compared to the Materialistic Philosophy of Science There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man's perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical naturalism and, to a lesser degree, is often even conflated with methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the dom^inant hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably. It will be my goal in this paper to briefly show where Materialism has led scientists down blind alleys in the past and then it will be my goal to show where Materialism may currently be tying science up in an unnecessary problem. First, lets take a look at a few of the predictions where Materialism has missed the mark and Theism has been accurate. 1. Materialism did not predict the big bang (neither did it predict the creation of time). Yet Theism always said the universe was created (as well as always saying that time was created). 2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space. 3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity. 4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism. 5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life. 6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code. 7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA. 8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth. 9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis", Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth. 10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion. 11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms. 12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. ---- As a sidelight to this subject, Dr. Anton Zeilinger has made breathroughs in quantum teleportation that reveals something fascinating: In mulling over the principle of Conservation of Information (Dembski), in looking at Dr. Zeilinger’s work with quantum teleportation. And somewhat apart from the CSI developed by Dr. Dembski, I find this principle of Conservation of Information to run much, much deeper than I had expected. Indeed it seems to run into the fabric of reality itself. Dr. Zeilinger’s work with quantum teleportation actually establishes, through repeatable experimentation, that “transcendent information” is do^min^ate of energy/matter! Yet this is a very, very peculiar thing, for as James Joule, the father of the first Law of thermodynamics, wrote: “It is manifestly absurd to suppose that the powers with which God has endowed matter can be destroyed any more than they can be created by man’s agency.” i.e. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Thus since energy can not be created nor destroyed by man’s agency, who are we to think that “transcendent information” ,which has the power to tell energy exactly what to be, should be any “less than” than energy in this “eternal” attribute. Thus is it perfectly reasonable to think that “transcendent information”, which is in fact do^min^ate of energy, can neither be created nor destroyed also i.e. It is not reasonable to presume that “information” does not also have this “eternal” characteristic since it is indeed primary over energy. IMHO this interesting peculiarity found for the “do^min^ance of “transcendent information” found in quantum teleportation necessitates, even warrants, the inference to the “infinite mind of God” to stay consistent with logic, with the first law, indeed to stay consistent with what we know for reality as a whole (anthropic principle). Anton Zeilinger Quantum Teleportation and the Nature of Reality http://www.btgjapan.org/catalysts/anton.html The quantum teleportation experiment raises very deep questions about the nature of reality at the quantum level. It shows that information, or knowledge, in some instances can have a more fundamental meaning than an objective reality. To be more specific, what can be said, i.e. information, can define what can be reality. So Ted that is the short version of the scientific evidence and none of it conflicts with my Theistic beliefs at all contrary to the hoops TE's have to jump through.bornagain77_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PST}

It is a humbling experience to have argued passionately and persistently on behalf of a certain proposition only to find that you have oversimplified the matter. I have had such a growth experience. Let me set the stage: In the past, Dave Scot has offended some readers by insisting that TE’s are “gutless,” noting how shamelessly they suck up to the academy. I, on the other hand, have claimed that TE’s are “irrational,” elaborating on their many contradictory views. After having engaged others on this matter and reading their responses, I have changed my mind. I am now prepared to say that both Dave and I have been premature in our analysis. It is far more likely that TEs are both gutless and irrational.StephenB_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PST}

"Theistic evolution" seems to be a legitimate option for Christian theists, but I believe that it has to be offered in a way in which it does not appear that "God" is a free rider. After all, Christian theism affirms God is the creator of all that contingently exists. This means that in a sense even theistic evolutionists are "creationists." Having said that, it seems to me that for the TE advocates, God must play some role in their account of reality. If he does not, then TE is just a short hand way to say that "belief in God" is not inconsistent with an account of the universe that does not require God. This, by the way, does not mean that one has to embrace ID as presently conceived by its dominant advocates. But it does mean that if one believes that theological claims are legitimate claims of knowledge, then the TE advocate has to present his view in a way in which God plays an indispensable role in his account of the universe. This is why ID's emphasis on Darwinian evolution rather than cosmic design was a hugely tactical error. For the former lends itself to the criticism that ID is merely "God of the gaps," for it tends to single out particular aspects of organisms for design accounts. This may be unfair, to be sure. But it is still very difficult to rebut the charge, since the design account is usually the result of a theory (e.g., WD"s explanatory filter) more controversial than the theory that the design account is attempting to refute. At the end of the day, ID advocates do themselves no favors by hurling insults at people like Miller and Collins. For they are more accomplished, more successful, and more well-respected than any ID advocate anywhere. That's harsh, I know. But it's the truth. The model that ID should have followed is how philosophers like Plantinga and Wolterstorff conducted themselves in the 1960s and 1970s when philosophical theism was a distinctly minority point of view. They published in the best journals, presented their papers at the best conferences, and did not use the instrument of the state to require that their views be taught at public universities. They built relationships with their adversaries and become leaders in their discipline. Did they sometimes have to bite their tongues when they were treated unjustly? Of course. But it was only because they thought of their cause as more important than winning every point in every venue. For example, who was the genius who told Gulliermo Gonzales it was a good idea to remain a DI fellow and publish his book before he earned tenure? Everyone knew that this was an accident waiting to happen. Imagine if GG had received wise advice from friends to resign his DI fellowship, back off the ID stuff, publish more peer-reviewed articles, apply for more grants, etc. Do you think he would be at Grove City College now? I doubt it. There are lots of noble reasons for which one should to lose a great job. ID is not even in the top 10.fbeckwith_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PST}

A very good post, Ted Davis (#43). I would comment that the theistic evolutionists you have been talking to seem to be somewhat confused or at least ignorant of the position of most influential ID thinkers (Mike Behe is the most obvious example). This is exemplified by your reporting that one of their main concerns with ID is that they apparently assume ID denies common descent and denies that "evolution" happened, defined as progressive change over vast ages of time. I am an ID advocate, and certainly agree that common descent and "evolution" as defined above are a reasonable scientific conclusions from the evidence. Apparently some of these people consider an argument against ID to be that it is "unclear how one would do science differently with ID, when it comes to working in laboratories and observatories and in the field." This is confusing a truth that it is impossible to observe the actual mechanisms by which CSI was somehow (intelligently) generated in the remote post, with the likelihood that it was in fact somehow generated intelligently. You indicate that also, "ID smells a lot like YEC to many religious scientists". This is somewhat confused, but understandable. At least some ID literature doesn't make the distinction clear enough between criticising "evolution" and criticising Darwinist evolution theory. Sometimes this seems deliberate, because the real agenda is indeed denying that "evolution" as evidenced by the deep past evidence of fossils didn't really happen. And many explicitly YEC sources espouse ID. But a little study of the ID literature would fix that. You indicate that theodicity is also a problem with these people in considering ID. I think this is in contrast not confused but a clear recognition of the problem ID creates in conjunction with their traditional Christian faith. This is the very real problem in accepting known facts of the natural and human world while at the same time maintaining faith in Christian notions of the nature of God and His relation to the world.magnan_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PST}

Ted Davis, (56) Thanks for your thoughtful response. Could you help us with something? What do you think made Collins argue for the existence of God using the origin of the universe, then apparently deny that one could legitimately so argue in the first paragraph of the next chapter? Do you see Collins' argument in chapter 3 as legitimate? If so, might the argument that life is too complex and specified for random processes plus natural selection to adequately explain also be a legitimate argument? Should we rule it out before any evidence is produced? If there is evidence supporting ID, could that evidence be rationally construed as pointing to God? I think I understand your point that TE's wish to argue for the existence of God while not challenging evolution. But this does not give a complete picture. Evolution as you define it is not the problem. Your definition is implicit in your statement, "the assumption that evolution is false (ie, that common descent has not been adequately shown)." In fact, common descent is accepted by multiple ID advocates, the most prominent one being Michael Behe. And yet I have not heard kind words for Behe from TE's, let alone acceptance that he could be raising legitimate points. This isn't about common descent. It is about the possibility that some of God's actions in nature are detectable. In fact, this isn't even about evolution, defined as Darwinian unguided evolution. Guillermo Gonzalez proposed that the solar system and the earth were uniquely (or at least unusually) positioned for the existence of life and for scientific discovery. The first proposition was probably not particularly controversial. It is just one more of those anthropic "coincidences" and presumably could be answered by atheists in the same way. But the second implied a designer (or, because of the magnitude of the task, a Designer), and brought down upon him the ire of the ISU astronomy faculty, along with multiple other faculty. But neither of Gonzalez's propositions challenged biological evolution, defined any way you want. It is arguable that, in the minds of atheist scientists, science must be safe for atheists. Any challenge to atheism from science is simply intolerable. As long as God is kept outside of the universe and cannot interfere with it, they are happy. Atheists can grudgingly tolerate belief in a God who started the universe. But if that God interfered with the universe, to make scientific discoveries easier (Gonzalez) or to create life or to guide evolution in any detectable way, the gloves are off, and one might as well be a full-blown YUC. In fact, it is worse, because in their minds YUC's can at least be discredited on the age question. Behe's protestation that he believes in evolution defined as common descent just makes it worse, as they can't (honestly) use common descent arguments to discredit him. It seems to me that there are four postitions in the theist TE/ID discussion. Dogmatic TE's maintain that there can be no scientific evidence for God's intervention in nature. Evidence-based TE's believe that God could intervene in nature, but we just haven't found any evidence. Evidence-based ID advocates say that God could have created the universe any way he wanted, but that the evidence points towards detectable activity. And dogmatic ID advocates say that God has promised to give evidence of his activity, and then go and look for it (and think they have found some). One of the mistakes that TE's make consistently is to insist that evidence-based ID advocates are really dogmatic. When they persist in this mistake after being carefully informed, it is tempting for ID advocates to make the same judgment concerning those TE's. Since hopefully you are evidence-based, perhaps you could explain how many neutral mutations can be expected to be traversed by an organism in, say, 500,000 generations, with a genome of, say, 3 billion bases and a mutation rate of, say, 6 mutations per generation. Is there an edge to evolution, and can we approximate it? And if so, how does it compare with the standard interpretation of paleontological change? Your thoughts on the origin of life would also be interestingPaul Giem_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PST}

Ted, I am disappointed that you did not have time to weigh in on my question @53. It is a simple one, immune from all of the difficult and rigorous sub-topics that are associated with deciding whose science is best. So, I will repeat the question without all of the explanatory nuances, which you can reread if you care to. We have two propositions: [A] the Bible teaches that design is detectable, that God revealed himself in nature, and that God wants to be discovered through nature. [B] TEs insist that design is NOT detectable, that God did NOT reveal himself in nature, and that God does NOT want to be discovered through nature. How do TEs reconcile [A] with [B], since they insist that they these two world views are compatible?StephenB_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PST}

I appreciate the responses several have offered to my comments. Although I lack time to respond fully to all of the thoughtful comments and questions, I want to respond briefly (at least) to a few. First relative to Francis Collins, in chapter four (above), IMO the really significant point he makes that is being missed, is this phrase: "but not in the simple, straightforward way that many found so compelling before Darwin came along." A lot of the Christian scientists I know would agree with this--certainly Polkinghorne and Gingerich (I select them simply b/c I already named them above) would. In their view, which I share, it's much more difficult today to put forth a simple, straightforward design argument of the old type (ie, before Darwin), and have it be very convincing. One could differ with this view, of course, but I share it myself. This does not mean that design arguments can't be made--Collins, Gingerich, Polkinghorne, and I all make them (in my case, they were in a debate I did vs an agnostic philosopher at Oregon State this past March; the other people named here have done it in print). But it does mean that such arguments can't just take a pre-Darwinian form, arguing for a creator from specific biological artifacts. Darwin could IMO account satisfactorily for a whole lot of that type of complexity. I won't go further with that part, so as to make my main point below--surely, everyone here would probably agree that Darwin can account for at least some things that previously had no good scientific explanation? The kinds of design arguments just mentioned are more about larger questions, such as how is biology possible at all? (fine tuning) How is science possible at all (rational creatures in a rational creation) These are things that Darwin just doesn't trump. However, b/c they aren't "your father's Oldsmobile," if you will (if this reference to an old TV commercial goes past you, I'm just showing my age), there seems to be the perception that these guys (including me) don't put any stock at all in natural theology. Not so. But the type of natural theology being done here doesn't involve "gaps" in the fossil record or the difficulty of explaining precisely how this or that biological feature was assembled. And, esp, they don't involve the assumption that evolution is false (ie, that common descent has not been adequately shown). A lot Christians, in my experience, simply expect NT to include the assumption that evolution is not true--and that science can show that it isn't. Furthermore, b/c the kinds of questions being asked here (see above) are more philosophical than scientific (though much of the information used in talking about them comes from science), the inference to a designer is more philosophical/theological than it is scientific. At least that is what I would say; if you use different implicit definitions of philosophy, science, and theology, perhaps you would say something different. Finally, the inference is being made, much more than it was before Darwin's time, in the face of the existence of suffering throughout nature--and also long before there were any people around to think about it. (I add that point b/c the problem of "death before the fall" has relevance here.) It isn't as though people didn't think about God and suffering before Darwin--they obviously did, or the book of Job would not exist. It's that in much traditional natural theology, evil and suffering (which I distinguish though they are partly related) were sort of added in at the end, as it were. In Paley's case, for example, it was "a good world after all." Well, IMO Paley was right--it is a good world, after all, but one can say that now, in the modern period, only after one has tried to deal with that substantively and directly in terms of God's character, purposes, and self-revelation. Not from nature, IMO, which is morally ambiguous--Darwin's pointed comments about the apparently wicked nature of wasps laying eggs in paralyzed spiders is a propos here. Someone like Steve Weinberg doesn't see God anywhere, in good part (by his own statements) b/c his father died of Alzheimer's disease (as my own mother did) and b/c many of his relatives were exterminated by the Nazis. To respond to the ugliness of the world as we often find it (IMO), God has to be brought directly into the conversation. Or else, it seems to me, the point of natural theology is moot at best. And I need a specific picture of God to bring into that picture, so I look to the God whom we crucified--the suffering God, whose character IMO is not irrelevant to understanding the design that is all around us. But many I know are reluctant to use the word "Design," b/c it will imply to many other people that they oppose evolution, since so often in the past "design" meant "not evolved." Am I being clear enough?Ted Davis_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PST}

At least that’s how I see TE’s worldview. Or to put it as a question, why would God interact with his creation and yet, have nothing to do with its formation?
I've come to realize that Darwinists on the whole believe evolution is as sound a scientific theory as gravity. As long as they believe that, they will believe there is no more need for intelligence in the creation of life than there is need for intelligence for a drop of water to fall to the ground by the action of gravity. They actually think Darwinism is scientifically sound.....and that God uses evolution like God uses gravity... God does not use epicycles to cause the appearance of retrograde motion, but rather principles of celestial mechanics which Kepler and discovered and Einstein further elaborated. The Theistic Darwinists keep believing God uses epicycles (so to speak)...they don't even realize Darwinism is a scientifically flatulent farce. Darwin's theory echoes the words of Charles Darwin:
I was nicknamed "Gas". Charles Darwin Autobiography
scordova_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PST}

I think that "spineless" is too strong a term to use for many TE's. It implies a clear knowledge of what is right, and refusing to speak out in support of that knowledge in spite of the fact that it would do some good, because is afraid of personal repercussions. I suspect that the problem is more likely lack of proper knowledge, or perspective on that knowledge, or simply the lack of clear thinking, perhaps due to the uncritical acceptance of popular (in the scientific community) memes. Let me give you an example. Frances Collins, in chapter 1 of The Language of God, gives the story of his conversion, then in chapter 2 meets several objections to theism commonly used by scientists. Clearly, he is sticking his neck out for theism and Christianity. In chapter 3, he uses arguments for God's supernatural involvement in the Big Bang, complete with fine tuning, that are familiar to most of us at UD. After such bold moves, the first two paragraphs of chapter 4 are stunners:
The advances of science in the modern age have come at the cost of certain traditional reasons for belief in God. When we had no idea how the universe came into existence, it was easier to ascribe it all to an act of God, or many separate acts of God. Similarly, until Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo upset the applecart in the sixteenth century, the placement of Earth at the center of the majestic starry heavens seemed to represent a powerful argument for the existence of God. If He put us on center stage, He must have built it all for us. When heliocentric science forced a revision of this perception, many believers were shaken up. But a third pillar of belief continued to carry considerable weight: the complexity of earthly life, implying to any reasonable observer the handiwork of an intelligent designer. As we shall see, science has now turned this upside down. But here, as with the other two arguments, I would like to suggest that science should not be denied by the believer, it should be embraced. The elegance behind life’s complexity is indeed reason for awe, and for belief in God—but not in the simple, straightforward way that many found so compelling before Darwin came along.
Look at those paragraphs carefully. There seem to be four main points: 1. The existence of the universe was an argument for God, but science has ruined that argument. 2. The existence of earth at the center of the universe was an argument for God, but science has ruined that argument. 3. The complexity of life requiring a designer was an argument for God, but science has ruined that argument. 4. However, (Darwinian) evolution is a good argument for God. Now, most of the time ID folks react to propositions 3 and 4, saying that the evidence doesn't support (unguided) evolution, and that evolution is not a good argument for God. Those reactions are proper. But look at proposition 1. Collins has just devoted an entire chapter to arguing the positive of proposition 1. Now he seems to be arguing the negative, with no apparent sense of the contradiction. Collins is not exactly stupid, and personally I find it hard to believe that he could make such a gross mistake on his own. My best guess is that he had help; that he has heard the first three propositions so often that he has accepted them without much examination, and has just never re-examined them in the light of the re-evaluation of the evidence that led him to write chapter 3. It takes a long time, and a lot of thought, to free oneself from the shackles of conventional thinking. Look at all the former TE's noted by scordova (47). I think we need to be careful in our assumptions about spinelessness. It may be just severe indoctrination. and the resultant difficulty with seeing the obvious.Paul Giem_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

Ted, if you or any of your colleagues want to transcend science and discuss philosophy and theology, I, for one, would welcome any such discussion. Indeed, I have several questions that I would ask of the TEs, but I will not burden you with all of them at this time. Still, if you would honor me with one brief answer, I would appreciate it. Theistic evolutionists, in general, attempt to reconcile their Christianity with neo-Darwinism. This is all very confusing to me. On the one hand, the Bible teaches that God’s handiwork has been made manifest in his creation. Indeed, the whole point about it is that God WANTS to be discovered through his designs. As Psalm 19 instructs us, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” And, of course we read in Romans 1:20, that the invisible things are clearly seen “being understood by the things that are visible.” Now I would expect even a mainstream Christian to take these passages seriously, but a “devout” Christian ought to be downright passionate about them. According to St. Paul, this is a self-evident truth, so much so, that anyone, Christian, agnostic, cynic, or anyone else who questions it is “without excuse.” On the other hand, Darwinism teaches that, in the unlikely event that there is a God, his handiwork is certainly not manifest in nature. Quite the contrary, design is an “illusion.” Obviously, that means that even if God does exist, he certainly does NOT WANT to be discovered through his designs, which means, of course, that he did not reveal himself in nature. Unlike the teleological view proposed above, Darwin’s world view is totally non-teleological. Even those TEs who say that God’s design is “inherent in the evolutionary process” agree with Darwin that such a design is undetectable. At best, it can only be believed. Obviously, a non-detectable design can hardly be a revelation. So we have two propositions: [A] the Bible teaches that design is detectable, that God revealed himself in nature, and that God wants to be discovered through nature. [B] TEs insist that design is NOT detectable, that God did NOT reveal himself in nature, and that God does NOT want to be discovered through nature. My question, then, is fairly simple: How do TEs reconcile [A] with [B], since they insist that they these two world views are compatible?StephenB_{June 18, 2008
June
06
Jun
18
18
2008
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply