Bill Dembski asks, Is Darwinism theologically neutral – at BioLogos (= Christians for Darwin)

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 1, 2012

Christian Darwinism, News

2}_{Categories
Christian Darwinism
News}

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

Those who embrace Darwin and his ideas regard him and Christ as compatible. Those who don’t, regard them as incompatible. Now compatibility and incompatibility are funny notions. They’re not like strict logical consistency or inconsistency, which admit of proof. At the hands of human rationalization, compatibility and incompatibility have the disconcerting tendency to become infinitely malleable. We’ve already seen how some Christians, by reading Genesis as teaching the special creation of living forms, conclude that Christ and Darwin are incompatible.

On the other hand, Michael Ruse (in Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?) argues that Christ and Darwin are eminently compatible. Sure, as Ruse puts it, “Darwinism is a theory committed to the ubiquity of law.” But, in Ruse’s mind, that’s not a problem for Christian faith. He continues, “Even the supreme miracle of the resurrection requires no law-breaking return from the dead. One can think of Jesus in a trance, or more likely that he really was physically dead but that on and from the third day a group of people, hitherto downcast, were filled with great joy and hope.”

“Southern Baptist Voices: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral?”, April 30, 2012

So Darwinism is compatible with a Christianity where churches rise again – as some really nice condos with an airy central atrium, very hot real estate-wise.

Comments

A typical conversation between Gregory and an ID proponent. ID: Gregory, please explain why you renounce ID's paradigms even though you are not even on speaking terms with the relevant concepts. GR: No explanation is required. I have written a book on that subject. Not only that, I speak about this topic to many international audiences. ID: That really isn't much of an answer. You often ask if ID is associated with "Imago Dei.." Why do you ask the question and what do you mean by it? GR: I know and interact with some of the most prominent ID scientists in the world. Also, I sit in audiences where they speak and grill them. You wouldn't believe how easy they are to stump. ID: I am not sure that I would trust your account of those events, but let's return to matters of substance. Though you take no stand, you appear to support the idea of methodological naturalism, but you provide no rational defense for that position. Do you have a defense? GR: I covered that subject in my master's thesis. Besides, my international audiences adore me. You wouldn't believe how many invitations I get to speak. ID: Well, I don't know about any of that. I can only judge you by the substance of your comments, or more precisely, the lack of substance. So, let's get back to the issue. How do you account for the fact that methodological naturalism, insofar as it acknowledges only two kinds of causes, "natural" and "supernatural," must, by definition, classify both burglars and tornadoes as "natural causes?" That is a problem. Do you know why it is a problem? Let me make it easy for you since there seems to be no other way you will apprehend the point. If both are natural causes, how does the archeologist differentiate between them in order to infer that an ancient hunter's spear was not the product of wind, air, and erosion? GR: Your question is so stupid, it reminds me of my first year students, who are, themselves, very stupid. That is why I made the comparison. ID: Well, given your evasion, I have to wonder if you are bluffing with your bluster, or if you understand the significance of the question, or if you have any familiarity at all with the subject matter. Partisan ideologues are presuming to tell ID scientists that they are permitted to study only natural causes, yet they cannot define a natural cause except in a way that destroys archeology, SETI, forensic science, and a number of other disciplines. Do you grasp any of this? GR: Let's change the subject. Do you know which prominent ID proponents are "naturalists?" ID: You certainly know how to head for the tall grass when someone asks a specific, well thought out question. With respect to your own thoughtless inquiry, it should be obvious that I cannot respond until you tell me which definition of "naturalist" you are using. One meaning refers to expertise about biological history and an extensive knowledge of nature; the other refers to a commitment to naturalistic metaphysics. Which meaning did you have in mind? GR: You wouldn't believe how many books I have read on ID. ID: Let me try it yet another way. You have stated that Dembski's definition of methodological naturalism is "bunk." Why did you say that? What is wrong with it? GR: I don't answer stupid, unimportant questions. By the way, do you realize that you forgot to capitalize the L in BioLogos? ID: Well, I never really thought about it that much. However, if it will make you happy, and if it will encourage you to answer some of my questions, I promise that I will capitalize the letter L when I use that title. GR: Another blogger gave me that same unacceptable excuse. He is just trying to cover his a**. I claim that he purposely insulted the BioLogos Institute and now he is trying to weasel out of it. ID: Because of your inexperience, you apparently don't realize that it is your sensibilities that are on trial--not his. GR: (Thinking)I can't let this subject alone because, frankly, it is the only one about which I can speak with authority and conviction. By now, everyone knows that I am blowing smoke and don't have a clue about the subject that I claim to have mastered. My hope was that if I told everyone that I am a professor, they would accept me as an expert on those terms and I would not have to prove the point. Why isn't my plan working? ID: Do you get away with insulting your questioners in other places? How do you handle the Q and A session with your many adoring audiences. GR: If they ask me a question that will reveal my true level of incompetence, I simply respond the same way I respond to Timaeus and StephenB. I will refuse to answer on the grounds that the question and the questioner are unworthy of a response. StephenB, for example, once used the phrase "ID world view." That proves that he is unqualified to ask questions and that I am above answering them. ID: Huh? What's wrong with that characterization? Didn't Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton and perhaps Albert Einstein believe in an "ID world view?" What was the context of StephenB's comment? For what point was he arguing? Did he draw a contrast between an ID world view and an ID scientific paradigm? What was his stated purpose for using that kind of language? Did you follow any of this? GR: Never mind that. Do you know how to spell Paul de Vries. StephenB, in referring to this author, capitalized the D? ID: What in the world? GR: That's right. It prompted me to ask him if he had read a certain article by this author, which as it turns out, he had. Then, horror of horrors, he had the temerity to ask me if I had read it and, worse, if I had understood it. ID: Did you answer him? Had you read it? Did you understand it? GR: Your questions remind me of my brother in law and he is one of the most unworthy questioners I ever encountered. ID: I have one final question. Are you capable of rational thought?StephenB_{May 5, 2012
May
05
May
5
05
2012
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I will watch with great interest what happens to the BioLogos organization. For the record, I don't see them doing God's work upon the earth, as apparently you do (if you can even be accepted as sincere). No, I don't have a lot of respect for it, nor liberalism in general, nor pedantry. They will likely either fold under the weight of their own irrelevance, or will steadily drift over to the ID side. (Darwinism is dead, but there's still a bit of central nervous system activity registering on the EEG. "Stay away from the light Darwin; don't go into the light!") I think you know what a sock puppet is. Your feigned ignorance is noted, as well as your strange and disconnected response. And if you want to issue exhortations about rudeness, perhaps try showing anything but a mocking contempt for respect when addressing those with whom you disagree. That you won't answer direct questions makes dialog impossible, as is evident by reading through this thread. You are officially wasting everyone's time with your very private obsession. But perhaps you already know that. Just to be clear, if the IDM and BioLogos remain as far from each other as east is from west, it will suit me just fine. Not only is there an obvious theological disparity between the two, but a scientific one as well. This means that the common factors between the organization and the movement are about as relevant as the fact that most of us like cheese, fruit, and wine. Let me restate that: there is nothing of substance in common between BioLogos and IDM, and so any "dialog" that isn't focused on trying to wake up a few of them is probably pointless. (Can anyone comment as to whether BioLogos was formed in response to the IDM?) m.i. P.S. Here's how a sane person would have approached the observation that folks weren't always referencing BioLogos correctly: Hey guys I'd really appreciate it if you'd take some care with the spelling of BioLogos. Some of you aren't capitalizing the 'L' in "Logos" and I can't really tell if this is intentional disrespect, or simply an oversight. Thanks! That you've descended into bizarre obsession over this is either comical or disturbing, depending on your level of sincerity. P.P.S. Stephen's second question in his #56 seems entirely reasonable. Feel free to answer it directly, and give your justifications. That should actually make for an interesting conversation.material.infantacy_{May 5, 2012
May
05
May
5
05
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

m.i. - like I said, we'll see if you show respect in action wrt BioLogos and capitalisation. I am no 'agent of BioLogos' but for all the 'defend against misunderstanding' I've heard here, it seemed necessary to push the point forward. Most people at UD now know that there's a Big 'L' involved in BioLogos, so proper and respectful naming should apply. The fact that Dembski even agreed to write an article for BioLogos and that Falk has somewhat 'changed his tune,' as nullasalus suggested in #18, is to me meaningful. But if the rank and file of the IDM, like yourself, aren't willing to change their attitude, such overtures as Dembski's and Falk's will be lost. On one hand, I'm assuming there's a cash deal involved in writing this series of articles for BioLogos by the Southern Baptist Convention. BioLogos did after all receive a considerable grant from Templeton (worth less than half of the DI's annual budget). On the other, there does appear to be desire for dialogue between at least some IDers and TEs/ECs at BioLogos. Indeed, the considerably different missions - reconciling (not just Darwinian) evolution and evangelical Christianity (plagued by YECism) and proving 'design in nature' (not just 'in society') - are not so different as to preclude collaboration. Unfortunately, the 'culture war' mentality appears to work against collaboration and cooperation in the USA today. Chest-thumping and sophistry (see Timaues' refusal to answer simple questions) abound. As for 'sock puppets,' like I said, for various reasons people here do not show their real names. We were instructed to be careful with revealing our 'true identity' at the DI's summer program. 'material.infantacy' sounds like a brave shield for the IDM. But rude communication is not welcome. Your only question in #58 appears to be rhetorical. Otherwise, #62 is humourous in its unwillingness to deal with the actual cards on the table. As above, Mission Accomplished - Timaeus now writes a Big 'L' for BioLogos (which means he knows they are not 'wholly naturalistic' regarding origins). Will you?Gregory_{May 5, 2012
May
05
May
5
05
2012
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Gregory, I see you have declined to be reasonable. It is impossible to take you seriously. I'm beginning to wonder if you do so yourself. Your refusal to answer plain questions, along with your ridiculous obsession with trivialities and non-controversial issues, dodging meaningful dialog, bizarre motive mongering, your apparent inability at any sort of introspection, the way you talk down to everybody, consistently rude behavior, at least mild paranoia, and general demeanor of cluelessness, leads me to believe that you may be one of the most clever and persistent sock puppets I have ever seen. I can't believe anyone, myself included, has taken you seriously for this long.material.infantacy_{May 5, 2012
May
05
May
5
05
2012
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

"This UD thread has been brought to you by the capital letter ‘L’." - material.infantacy Next time you write the Proper Name, BioLogos, we shall see if you've learned, and can remember or if you prefer to continue to disrespect; you were one of the offenders, as indicated above. "Stop me Gregory, if I’m being unfair." - m.i. Well, it's not 'unfair' to ask me questions in a dialogue. As I'm sure you realise, for those of us who write under 'pseudonym' here (i.e. most of us), for a variety of reasons that don't need to be addressed, there is a disadvantage for some more than others. It 'levels' the playing field so a person with little to no training in the relevant disciplines can discourse with someone trained, engaged, involved with professionals who discuss and think about these things regularly, i.e. not just as a hobby. On the one hand it is the 'greatness of the internet' forum to be inclusive and welcoming to all voices; on the other it flattens authority and competence so that sometimes those who speak the most are taken most seriously, rather than giving preference to those with knowledge and insight. By profession I am a professor and StephenB's comments sometimes remind me of first year university students; so I don't always respond to him. E.g. he told me he considered ID as a 'worldview.' I'm not often going to waste my time responding here at UD trying to educate StephenB on this topic. His 'True or False' question in #56 is of this variety. Regarding my views on the 'detectability of design,' I believe and accept some design is detectable while other supposed design isn't. I don't believe 'everything is designed' because that would be a mess of a theory, given the world I see around me (surely the same for you; e.g. vast inequality of wealth in USA - 'designed'?). I've already mentioned here various arenas in which 'design' is a legitimate concept, has been for quite some time and where there is no controversy about it. Please don't forget that I asked nullasalus for a 'debate' thread, between just him and me, where I would 'disclose' some of the 'agenda, biases, motivations, beliefs' as you call them. Otherwise, you surely must realise that it is difficult to 'feel home' at UD if one doesn't tow the party line about ID, don't you? But all of this is beside the point that Timaeus has finally changed his tune and now openly acknowledges the Big 'L' in BioLogos, which makes it very difficult to speak of them as 'wholly naturalistic' like he accuses. Small 'l' maybe; Big 'L,' impossible. He has conceded that "BioLogos explicitly endorses a theistic account of origins." If he still wants to wrestle with their 'naturalistic theism,' in science, philosophy and religion dialogue, he is of course free to do so. The fact remains that my simple, clear, direct question to Timaeus was not answered; what he did what practice sophistry, waving his hands and seeking partisan comfort from UD, where he is valued (we don't know if anyone in the 'real world' values him or if he actually publishes or attempts to publish about ID, rather than just blogging here about it; he won't say). But we do now know, from his own words here, that Timaeus (all along) knew BioLogos had a capitalised 'L,' but that he *chose*, intentionally, purposefully, for rhetorical purposes, for whatever personal reasons he had, to write a small 'l' in their name, thus disrespecting them and the discourse. This displays that though he seeks respect, he hasn't earned it by his actions. Now he will capitalise the 'L' in BioLogos; great - a better playing field for discussion! That accomplishes the mission. Will you and others do the same by your actions, m.i.?Gregory_{May 5, 2012
May
05
May
5
05
2012
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

Gregory: I won't further indulge your continuing personal disrespect (I "faked" nothing, and your motive-mongering is insulting) by continuing to answer your charges regarding the spelling of BioLogos, but I will answer your question of substance. I never, at any point, denied that BioLogos was theistic. I have made no new admission, so there is simply nothing to "retreat" from. However, what you fail to see, Gregory, is that not all "theisms" are created equal. The theism of Calvin or Augustine, and the theism of Ken Miller or Darrel Falk, are quite different sorts of animals, and go with very different conceptions of Christian theology. The fact that BioLogos is "theistic" does not prove that its form of "theism" has any healthy relationship with the "theism" of historical Christian orthodoxy. BioLogos's brand of theism is tied to a de facto understanding of naturalism in origins. It therefore envisions God's creative activity in a restrictive way. And this restriction has never been justified intellectually; it's simply a theological preference. It's important that the public realizes that BioLogos is selling a particular theological preference. Otherwise, it might think that BioLogos is merely trying to relate "good science" to historical Christian theology. But in fact, the defense of historical Christian theology is very, very low on the BioLogos list of priorities. That is where ID people strongly differ from TE/EC people -- they have a much greater commitment to retaining the uncompromised theologies of the various ancient Christian traditions -- Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox. The TE/EC people are generally much more enthralled with post-Enlightenment developments in Christian theology. But the "theism" of post-Enlightenment thought is quite different from the "theism" of pre-Enlightenment thought. The theism of pre-Enlightenment thought was not the captive slave of naturalism in origins. So I repeat my original claim: the fact that BioLogos is theistic does not prevent its being naturalistic. And the insistence upon naturalism in origins is a metaphysical/theological position, not a scientific one. It can be denied with a good conscience by any working scientist. Would it be rude to ask you, Gregory, if you agree with the working understanding of BioLogos, i.e., that ultimately the origin of life, species, and man will all be explained in wholly naturalistic terms, i.e., as requiring no "intervention" but only "natural laws" devised by and sustained by God? I don't believe you have ever spoken to this subject. It may be your silence in this area that makes your position so hard for people at UD to understand.Timaeus_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

This UD thread has been brought to you by the capital letter 'L'.material.infantacy_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Stephen and Timaeus, Gregory appears to have put himself in the role of inquisitor, mediator, and journalist. He will ask the questions; you just worry about answering them, and then await his judgment -- recorded for posterity on the pages of UD. I wouldn't expect much beyond tangential obsessions and accusations; and he will often expose you for non-controversial statements. It's more than a little strange. I haven't read anything here where he is plain and forward about his agenda, his biases, his motivations, or beliefs -- not to mention his actual views on the detectability of design. You will be left trying to extract that information from between the lines, with no real help from Gregory himself, and not much confirmation as to whether you've interpreted him correctly. Stop me Gregory, if I'm being unfair. Our last conversation ended with you essentially declining me the courtesy of answering my questions directly, after I went out of my way to be entirely plain and straightforward with you. I see this pattern repeating itself now. If I'm wrong, and you're genuine and sincere, you can address both of Stephen's questions in #56 with direct unequivocal answers. Now will Gregory accept the invitation to equitable dialog, or decline and delegitimize himself here?material.infantacy_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

"I knew what the spelling of BioLogos was." - Timaeus Repeat: "I knew what the spelling of BioLogos was." No, you didn't say this. But now you have. You said: "probably, I remembered it after typing the word" and "I simply was typing in a hurry." You simply could not or would not answer the direct question: “Did you personally not know that BioLogos had a capital ‘L’ in its name until recently, Timaeus?” You didn't answer. But now you have. The record doesn't lie. That is the real situation in this thread. From #26 to #52, please quote where you said you knew what the spelling of BioLogos (with a capital 'L') was before I pointed it out to you here on this Blog. "I am characterizing how the overwhelming majority of BioLogos writers and supporters *think* that God acts, when it comes to origins." - Timaeus Sorry, but after faking it about not knowing that BioLogos has a capital 'L', I think you characterisation of 'BioLogos writers' is worth very little. "You are right to say that BioLogos explicitly endorses a theistic account of origins. But you are wrong to imply that therefore it cannot also endorse a naturalistic account of origins. It endorses both, the first formally and the latter informally." - Timaeus I'm glad you finally acknowledge, Timaeus, that BioLogos "endorses a theistic account of origins." This is important on its own. "It endorses both" - now you seem to be starting to understand something new, i.e. 'changing your tune' like finally calling Proper Names by their Proper Names. Informally or formally (and bet your house I've studied the difference), Timaeus has finally acknowledged BioLogos' unmistakeably theistic approach to (cosmogonic and/or biological) origins. Now will he retreat or move forward?Gregory_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Gregory, Sorry, but I must ask you again. Why did you say that Dembski's definition of "methodological naturalism" was "bunk?" In keeping with that point, please tell me if you agree with this corollary that follows from the principle of methodological naturalism: A burglar who ransacks a room and leaves it in disarray is the same kind of cause as a tornado that ravages a room and leaves it in disarray, i.e, they are both "natural causes." True or False.StephenB_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Gregory: You speak of the need of respect. You pose as a champion of "respect." Yet you have just publically (52) disrespected me by accusing me of deliberately evading your questions, and leaving the reader to assume bad motives on my part. In fact I answered your questions clearly. I indicated that I knew what the spelling of BioLogos was; I told you that I sometimes momentarily forgot it when I was typing in a hurry, but didn't deem it worthwhile to go back and correct, for reasons which I clearly stated. I also indicated that I had no malicious intent in misspelling the word. Your response, on the other hand, openly avers distrust of my words and motives. I consider this open declaration of distrust a much more disrespectful act than the failure to type a capital L. So show me some respect, and apologize for your unwarranted distrust of my sincere words. If you don't respect your interlocutors here, you hardly have the moral high ground in asking them to respect the people at BioLogos.Timaeus_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Gregory: Terms like "theistic" and "naturalistic" are right smack in the area of my academic training. My understanding of "naturalistic origins theories" is not some idiosyncrasy of my own, but standard for the subject area. Further, since I have read virtually every column on the BioLogos site, and many other things published elsewhere by BioLogos authors, I am certain that I have not mischaracterized the BioLogos people in saying that they have a marked preference for naturalistic, i.e., non-interventionist, accounts of origins. This is characteristic not only of BioLogos TEs but of ASA-TEs in general, as I know from extensive interaction with ASA-TEs (as a "guest star", courtesy of Ted Davis) on their now-defunct web site. (Someone named "Gregory" was there at the time, though it may have been a different Gregory from yourself.) I have seen ASA-TEs ridicule ID discussions of origins by making sarcastic references to "angels pushing the planets around in their orbits," and of course you cannot be unaware that TEs constantly charge ID with "God of the gaps" (i.e., interventionist) thinking about origins. The TE mindset is a post-Enlightenment, naturalistic mindset: God works through natural causes, except for the case of the miracles connected with God's revelation to Israel. (And a good many leading TEs doubt the actual historical occurrence of a good number of those miracles as well.) I have made no claim whatsoever about 'where nature ends and where the supernatural begins.' I am not characterizing how God acts; I am characterizing how the overwhelming majority of BioLogos writers and supporters *think* that God acts, when it comes to origins. They think that he acts through natural causes alone (even though they periodically grant the theoretical possibility that he might not). Dennis Venema does not think that God "tweaked" the DNA of some sub-human hominid to turn him into a true human being, and Darrel Falk does not think that God directly inserted new information into the evolutionary process during the Cambrian Explosion. They think that all of the transformations, from molecules to man, occurred as a result of the natural powers of atoms, molecules, DNA, etc., without need for any special divine action. They will never say that outright as a dogmatic theological proposition, but that is their *operational* understanding of how things happened. And it is the operational understanding of a person, not the theoretical allowances a person makes for the sake of diplomatic coverage, that tells us what a person really thinks. The entire raison d'etre of TE/EC is to reconcile Christian faith with post-Enlightenment scientific naturalism. The odd exception to this generalization -- the occasional TE who says that there was an isolated bit of intervention here and there, maybe for the origin of life or the origin of man -- does not overturn the overall accuracy of the generalization. (Especially since those TEs who make the exceptions are generally too embarrassed to say so in front of fellow-TEs -- which makes catching such exceptions on camera hard to do.) So, to come back to the point: You are right to say that BioLogos explicitly endorses a theistic account of origins. But you are wrong to imply that therefore it cannot also endorse a naturalistic account of origins. It endorses both, the first formally and the latter informally. For BioLogos, life, species, and man were created by God -- through wholly natural means, without any special interventions (special divine actions, miracles, violations of the laws of nature -- call them whatever you wish), and it's the job of Christian natural scientists to work out the details of these wholly natural means. ID refuses to accept this arbitrary delimitation of origins scenarios. Hence the two must clash. Were BioLogos to make its *formal* allowance (that God might occasionally intervene) into an *operational* principle (in each case, let's consider interventionist and non-interventionist scenarios on their merits) -- the dispute between ID and TE would dissolve. But as long as TE maintains "naturalism in origins" as an inflexible operational principle for theology-science discussions, there can be no progress in talks between the two groups.Timaeus_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Frankly, I'll believe that it's a form of 'communicative courtesy' to fret over the capitalization of the l in BioLogos/Biologos the moment I hear Falk or any reps say they find it offensive or anything close to it when the l is compromised. C'mon guys. It'd be one thing if this were insulting (Calling Mitt Romney 'Mittens' comes to mind), or something similar to failing to capitalize the g in God. But this? I think there's better stuff to talk about. Barring that, find me the rep from there that gets worked up over this.nullasalus_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Sorry, Timaeus. But that deliberate non-answer (diversion of responsibility) does not earn my respect. The question was simple and clear; you chose to complicate it. Bilbo I's sincerity in #42 is far more appreciated. And it has nothing to do with me, but with awareness of reality and respect in 'speaking people straight in the eye'. May it be that you'll find 'communicative courtesy' somewhere in your heart as well.Gregory_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

To Gregory: I would guess that I typed "Biologos" on this site scores of times before you ever raised this point, and in all such cases, it was without paying any attention to whether or not I was using a capital L. In no case was I thinking: "The people at BioLogos will see the lower-case "l" and really be ticked off, and I love irritating them" or anything of the sort. I simply was typing in a hurry. In some of those cases, I doubtless momentarily forgot that they used a capital L; in other cases, probably, I remembered it after typing the word, but thought it was a non-issue, and didn't deem it worthy of any time to correct. (Since I'd never seen a BioLogos commenter or columnist express any indignation about missspelling the word, I'd have no reason to think it would offend.) I think I have now directly answered your questions about my intentions, and I don't intend to return to this topic.Timaeus_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

"They had a good sub-editor." - Jon Meaning, they (purposefully) made a Big 'L' - BioLogos - of your small 'l' - Biologos. It helps. Respect. OR Respect. It helps.Gregory_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

I don't know if this helps, but I was invited to write an article for BioLogos last year and used the word "Biologos" 5 times. They had a good sub-editor.Jon Garvey_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

I appreciate your efforts to be polite, Timaeus. Noted that you are not interested in gratuitously offending people. You didn't answer my questions, "Did you personally not know that BioLogos had a capital ‘L’ in its name until recently, Timaeus?" and "was it ‘unconscious’ forgetfullness on your behalf?"(i.e. since I alerted you to this some time ago), but I've grown used to that. “Does Christian theology imply or encourage a naturalistic approach to origins?” No, it encourages something beyond nature-alone and not merely 'in nature'. So, what alternative to "a naturalistic approach to origins" do you propose? A 'supernaturalistic approach,' a 'spiritualistic approach,' an 'intelligence approach,' an 'agency approach,' a 'non-naturalistic approach,' etc.? Could you put a Specific Name on your personal alternative to "a naturalistic approach to origins" please? Also, by 'origins' I imagine you are referring to the (scientific) field of cosmogony, but if not, please specify which (scientific) field of thought you are referring to. BioLogos accepts "a theistic approach to (cosmogonic & biological) origins," not "a naturalistic approach to origins." This (especially the 2nd part of the 1st claim) should be entirely obvious from the Big 'L' in Logos - why else would they capitalise it?! - to anyone who understands the meaning of 'caritas' in the recent papal encyclical or in religious scripture. Citing political reasons 'why else' will likely not provide a satisfactory answer. "Regarding “theistic” and “naturalistic,” the contrast made above is not sound, because “naturalistic” is an equivocal term." Your claim of 'equivocation' does not hold, Timaeus, because you personally cannot say either where nature ends and where the supernatural begins, and vice versa. And 'theistic' can mean more than one thing too. ID makes no satisfactory distinction on this topic and you are surely not defending a 'science of ID' that can (or should try to) do this. "a Platonic, design perspective which I first encountered as a historian of ideas." Plato, instead of Aristotle. O.k. here actually we would agree. But again, not fresh for the 21st century, not on the cutting-edge, not dealing with electricity and at too slow a pace.Gregory_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Gregory to Timaeus,
I hope you’ll show you are capable of critical thinking rather than just towing a (negativistic, please don’t misunderstand ‘us’!) party line too. Dembski’s definition of ‘methodological naturalism’ at BioLogos is bunk, to which Neil Rickert commented in #4.
What's wrong with Dembski's definition? In fact, Methodological Naturalism is an arbitrarily established rule which states that the scientist must study nature as if nature is all there is. Dembski said the same thing in different words.
From this back-and-forth between Dembski and Falk, it is quite obvious that BioLogos believes in a ‘theistic’ theory of origins, not a ‘naturalistic’ one, as Timaeus contends.
As I explained @39, Darwinian evolution, which is, by definition, a process that doesn’t know where it is going or where it will end, is not compatible with God’s purposeful, end directed, creation. By publicly embracing a process that is not end-directed, Falk is militating against a "theistic theory of origins."StephenB_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

I wouldn't be surprised if I (along with many others) have unintentionally mis-capitalized, from time to time, regarding Nullasalus/nullasalus, Tragic Mishap/tragic mishap, etc. The use of capitalization in internet "handles" is notoriously idiosyncratic, and it's not surprising that many commenters simply forget, in the hurry of composing their replies, what capitalization pattern a particular individual uses. But the moment anyone tells me: "I wish you would take proper care to capitalize my name as follows," I will always try to respond with the necessary corrections. I don't believe in gratuitously offending people. In the case of BioLogos, as I said before, I have never seen a single incident where any commenter on BioLogos, or any BioLogos official, has objected to an omitted capital "L." The most logical inference from this fact is that they don't regard the capitalization or non-capitalization of the letter as a big deal, and don't see any breach of manners or disrespect. So I think the whole focus on "respect" here is misplaced. But if I am wrong, if anyone on BioLogos has ever objected to miscapitalization as a sign of disrespect, I would be glad to be given the location of any such remarks. But this is really irrelevant, since I have already agreed that "BioLogos" is a better orthography for the stated principles of the organization, and in future I intend (though I may slip from time to time, in which case I hope not to be upbraided) to employ the capital L. That's the last thing I want to say about this subject. Regarding another set of remarks made, about history of ideas, I don't see the point. There is no reason at all why a historian of ideas can't be very concerned about what is happening in the world today, or be very committed to the intellectual advances made in "the electronic-information age." As far as I can tell, the latest developments in engineering, mathematics, computer science, theoretical biology, etc., all support a Platonic, design perspective which I first encountered as a historian of ideas. Regarding "theistic" and "naturalistic," the contrast made above is not sound, because "naturalistic" is an equivocal term. "Naturalistic" can mean at least two different things -- (1) there is no God, but only Nature; (2) there is a God, but in producing life, species, and man, he acted only through natural (as opposed to supernatural) means. Obviously BioLogos is opposed to (1) and so are ID people. But BioLogos is a strong supporter of (2), and ID people are unconvinced of (2). Of course, BioLogos *formally* acknowledges the possibility of supernatural intervention in matters of origins; Falk has just done so in reply to Dembski. But *the actual working belief* of BioLogos columnists -- the overwhelming majority of them -- is that God used wholly natural means, and that the onus is on those who believe otherwise to prove supernatural intervention. The ID position is quite different; it is that there should be *no* assumption -- *not even a working assumption* -- that God preferred natural to supernatural means in origins. Thus, while Falk has "covered himself" by formally allowing for supernatural interventions in the sphere of origins, the substantive difference in approach between ID and TE remains. TEs have a theological preference for naturalistic means, and ID people don't. That's a very important difference, and one which springs from different notions of what Christian theology teaches -- which is why historical questions are important and cannot be discounted as a preoccupation of old men who aren't keeping up with the times. The question: "Does Christian theology imply or encourage a naturalistic approach to origins?" is crucial to the theology-science discussion, and can't be answered adequately without a vast amount of historical knowledge.Timaeus_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

"I would guess that in the overwhelming majority of cases where individuals type “Biologos” no disrespect is consciously intended." - Timaeus That's fine, as your own personal guess. The 'sheer typing reflex' is different with Proper Names. Take for example how participants choose to capitalise (e.g. Bilbo, StephenB, Neil Rickert) or not capitalise (e.g. nullasalus, merv) their Names here at UD. It is respectful to speak to a person as they name themselves; one would have to be pretty unaware to not know that BioLogos capitalised the 'L.' A shift-L takes little effort - mind over matter, Timaeus! I've made the effort, now finally glad to see you do the same. Did you personally not know that BioLogos had a capital 'L' in its name until recently, Timaeus? You said you used to post there. Iow, while up until now you've been using the small 'l' (likely for rhetorical purposes), even after I reminded you of the Big 'L,' and you didn't change, did you not expect this would be seen as a sign of disrespect, rather than simply habit, you who claims to be so careful? Or was it 'unconscious' forgetfullness on your behalf? Well, so if you can change, this is a good start. And now that you've said you "think it is a good thing to spell it BioLogos," the official way, I'll assume that this is a suggestion to other UD participants. Given the tendency to attack BioLogos and ASA, TE and EC by UD home players, let us see if following your suggestion produces actual results. The Big 'L' makes a Big difference! As for 'classical' and 'post-Enlightenment,' I'm not sure why I get the feeling you'd rather revert to a 'pre-Enlightenment' existence rather than living now, on the cutting-edge in the electronic-information age. Maybe it's because, as you've told us, you're a historian of ideas, iow, someone who spends most of their time looking into the past. I don't mind that and can surely respect that. But as a member of a younger generation, I live and work in the real world today. This has brought me not only to consider ID and the IDM, but to think critically (here read: constructively) about them, and ID is undoubtedly a younger generation's 'revolution,' Timaeus. I hope you'll show you are capable of critical thinking rather than just towing a (negativistic, please don't misunderstand 'us'!) party line too. Dembski's definition of 'methodological naturalism' at BioLogos is bunk, to which Neil Rickert commented in #4. From this back-and-forth between Dembski and Falk, it is quite obvious that BioLogos believes in a 'theistic' theory of origins, not a 'naturalistic' one, as Timaeus contends.Gregory_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

I would guess that in the overwhelming majority of cases where individuals type "Biologos" no disrespect is consciously intended. The normal English pattern of capitalization is "first letter," not "first letter plus some other letter in the middle of the word." It is therefore only natural that sheer typing reflex will produce "l" rather than "L" in many cases, with the person doing the typing in many cases not even noticing the change being unconsciously made. I would also guess that very few people over at BioLogos care much about the spelling of the word; I've seen it spelled "Biologos" there in scores of comments by many different people, and I've never seen anyone corrected either by other commenters or by any of the management of BioLogos. When you combine this with the first point above, I would venture to say that "respectfulness" is rarely at issue in the spelling of the word. That said, I think it is a good thing to spell it BioLogos, because that spelling actually holds the BioLogos team to their purported original vision. The God who creates, for BioLogos, is not the Deist God or the Muslim God, but the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity. The Logos is understood in Christian tradition to act in a rational, orderly way, i.e., with plan and purpose. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is inherently without plan or purpose. Someone who believes that the Logos is Creator should find it hard to accept that "randomness" is the Creator's main mode of creative operation. ID people should have no problem at all with an emphasis on God as Logos, and should encourage that conception. It would help bring the people at BioLogos back to classical Christian theology, from which they very often stray in their enthusiasm for post-Enlightenment adjustments and improvisations.Timaeus_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

No worries then, Bilbo. Thanks for sharing your view on the matter. I was wondering if people at UD were being intentionally disrespectful in how they address BioLogos or not. I'm aware that you sometimes post on BioLogos also. Again, like I said above, it seems to me that capitalising the 'L' makes a REALLY BIG difference in its meaning. E.g. a 'naturalistic theory of origins' simply cannot be maintained when BioLogos speaks of the Language of God. At the least, it shows that 'Logos' is not simply a naturalistic term, based on shared traditions. I wonder if this language respect can be accepted en masse at UD. StephenB still used small 'l' Biologos in #40, while in another thread (in brackets), he managed to capitalise the 'L'. It shouldn't be that hard to press Shift-L in the middle of a word! Here I am simply mediating between BioLogos (TE/EC) and Uncommon Descent (ID) by pointing out communicative courtesy. In the spirit of both Dembski's and Falk's (and Timaeus') 'change of tune,' perhaps using respectful language can be supported here.Gregory_{May 4, 2012
May
05
May
4
04
2012
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Sorry, Gregory, I never realized that it was supposed to be "BioLogos." I'll try to remember to write it that way from now on. While we're waiting for the second coming, we can debate exactly how God created it all. Perhaps God was an inveterate gambler, who created a multiverse, until the right one hit the jackpot. Maybe He was a scientist in a white lab coat, tinkering with a cell under a microscope. Maybe He was a swimmer who shrunk Himself down to the size of a cell and constructed it molecule by molecule. This last idea strikes me as being the most fun. I'll place my bet on this one, since I think God likes having fun as much as we do.Bilbo I_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

make that "even if" the evidence doesn't support it.StephenB_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

---Gregory: "Would you not agree that *all* ‘theories of origins’ are ideologically-driven, in a sense that they depend on ideas?" Actually, that's a good question. First, we must distinguish between "idea," which is simply another word for concept or theory, and "ideology," which, as I used the term, implies an apriori and uncompromising commitment to a body of binding doctrines. I would say that Biologos' theory of origins, summarized as the notion that God must act solely through secondary causes and in no other way (no "tinkering" or interventions allowed) is ideologically driven. It is founded on two non-negotiable principles [a] God's omnipotence would be compromised if He was "reduced" to functioning like an orchestra leader (as opposed to an engineer) and [b] Darwin's general theory of evolution must be accepted at all costs, ever is the evidence doesn't support it--and no Christian Darwinist would dare say that it does. So, is ID's theory of origins ideologically driven. Let's examine it: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." Notice the words, "is best explained," which in my judgment, rises above ideology and encourages one to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. It says nothing about how God "must" create. It simply bids the thinker to sit and nature's feet and humbly allow himself to be taught. If certain features in nature appear to be designed, perhaps they are.StephenB_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

--Nullasalus: "How would one (if one wanted to) say, “Theistic Evolution is a viable option for Evangelical Christians, but most of the popular books on the subjects, and many of the leaders in the movement, don’t subscribe even to historic Christian, let alone Evangelical, doctrine.”? " Sure, Theistic Evolution properly understood, is no problem. God can certainly use evolution to produce Homo Sapiens. The difficulty comes when Christian Darwinists say that God used a random, Darwinian process (by definition, a process that is NOT directed toward a SPECIFIC end) to serve that end. God is in control of that random process, they say, insofar as He knows exactly what the final outcome will be. Most of the TE heavy hitters, especially Francis Collins, take this position. It will not work because God's omniscience cannot compensate for what God's omnipotence doesn't provide, namely a teleological process that will infallibly produce a specific result. If God, through his omnipotence, designs an end-directed process, then God's omniscience is, in that context, redundant, meaning that He knows the outcome in two ways: He knows it because [a] He caused it to happen and His omnipotence guarantees that the process will infallibly produce the result He wants, and [b] because His omniscience allows Him to know the final outcome of all processes. In that sense, God is using evolution to produce Homo Sapiens, a result that conforms perfectly to his original intentions. On the other hand, If God, through His omnipotence, crafted a random, Darwinian process, then obviously God did not intend a specific outcome. He was, in that sense, willing to settle for many possible outcomes. God's perfect knowledge of that totally random process cannot make it an end-directed process that will produce a specific outcome. On the contrary, He knows that the process was designed by Him NOT to do that. This is where Francis Collins (and by extension, and for the most part, BioLogos) goes wrong. Darwinian evolution, which is, by definition, evolution that doesn't know where it is going or where it will end, is not compatible with God's purposeful creation. That should be obvious.StephenB_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

PS to blow my own trumpet in a most unseemly fashion, three posts on the Falk/Dembski exchange hereJon Garvey_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

@ Gregory 34 My problem with heterodoxy in BioLogos is that it is, effectively, the only large and influential theistic evolution outfit, and it attracts very respected writers, which raioses its profile even more. That being the case it has a responsibility to more than itself. To the extent that it was founded within, and largely for, the Evangelical community then its theology ought to centre on that (which is wide enough, to be sure, but pretty distinguishable not only in the US but across the world). That, I think, would also make it useful to those from the historical traditions like the Roman and Eastern, which have fundamentally Biblical theologies, and respect for much of the same tradition, for all their differences. Alternatively a TE site could self-identify more broadly with "Christian Theistic Evolution", but then ought to make room for a very wide range of different approaches indeed. I'm not sure I'd want to organise a site like that, and it might well end up in tears. Or, one could handle TE as a strictly non-sectarian philosophical position, which it essentially is. This would (in theory) avoid much in the way of discussion of Biblical themes, and might well have the same pleasantly speculative flavour as, say, Paul Davies' books on fine-tuning. But that wouldn't necessarily help those with the biggest problem, that is those trying to reconcile a real faith with contemporary science - and Christians, in our neck of the woods, are those most interested in that. From the dialogue between Farrel Falk and William Dembski there ought to be no more than a cigarette paper between them - a united front would not seem beyond the realm of possibilities.Jon Garvey_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Gregory #35 I would agree with you if all ideologists were open-minded and were ready upon fair discussion to change their views, based only on the cogent arguments against their ideology.Eugene S_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply