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

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 1, 2012

Christian Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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 mistaken and ideologically-driven theory of origins can distort one’s view of God" - StephenB Would you not agree that *all* 'theories of origins' are ideologically-driven, in a sense that they depend on ideas? Personally, I cannot imagine a 'non-ideologically-driven' theory of (life or universe) origins. I gather you view ideology as a purely negative term, StephenB, whereas many other people do not view it that way. Have you thought about this possibility too?Gregory_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

@ Jon 29 "It seems to me that, for a theistic evolution organisation with Evangelicals as its constituency, BioLogos was nevertheless always heavily biased towards heterodox ideas, especially Open and Process Theology." - Jon Yes, there are seemingly some ‘heterodox’ tendencies there in my view also. But at the same time, I’ve seen no evidence against the notion that all of the leaders at BioLogos are nevertheless considered 'orthodox' by the local Protestant churches they attend. I see this as a serious problem resulting from the Protestant Reformation as a whole (it's not all peaches and cream, after all!); denominationalism makes it difficult to have any ‘orthodox’ meaning of ‘heterodoxy’ in Protestantism. BioLogos people, for example, might even consider you 'heterodox' by sticking to a 'Closed or Static Theology' that doesn’t take into account advances made in cybernetics, systems science or organisation theory, or me ‘heterodox’ and outdated for sticking behind the insistence that ‘real, historical A&E’ are ‘traditional’ teachings of the Abrahamic faiths, not to be compromised or discarded because of genomics or population genetics. I'm curious though, if you could suggest an alternative organisation to BioLogos, anywhere in the world, with a similar mission, i.e. to show that evolutionary biology and Christianity can be accepted (as far as that goes, which it seems is also your broad position) by one and the same person, that you would consider 'orthodox,' i.e. within traditional and historical Christianity as you see it. On the one hand, I appreciate criticism and rebukes of ‘heterodoxy’ when it is present; on the other hand, I much prefer to read solutions or constructive suggestions and not just identification of problems. BioLogos fails; well so have I and so I’m challenging you to suggest a better openly Christian organisation on this theme of evolutionary theories, broadly framed as a dialogue of 'science and faith.'Gregory_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

"I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m personally quite happy to write “BioLogos” with capital letters. My problem is that I haven’t seen a single column on BioLogos, during its entire tenure of existence, in which the Logos (spelled with or without a capital!) is the leading subject of the column." - Timaeus Good, I'm glad to hear that you've changed your thought-habit, opting now to correctly spell the name of 'BioLogos.' Will others on this list follow his lead in this ‘new tune’ from Timaeus? (Thanks now to StephenB also for stepping up!) That you make no defence of your choice to do this as having to do with 'internet courtesy,' my first question, and no attempt to answer the second question of whether there is an ideological difference in incorporating a 'Big L' instead of a 'small l' is noted. Maybe it is the responsibility of outsiders, i.e. non-BioLogosians, to encourage more work on Logos at BioLogos, so that it can some day perhaps live up to its (Francis Collins invented) name. Wouldn't it be an ironic surprise if IDers could do a better job at showing how the Logos is actively (detectably) involved in processes of change-over-time 'in nature' than BioLogos has thus far done! ; )Gregory_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

--Jon: "Nobody goes to hell for a mistaken theory of origins – but a deficient view of God can have big consequences." True. However, a mistaken and ideologically-driven theory of origins can distort one's view of God.StephenB_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

--Gregory: "Is it properly called Biologos – small ‘l’ or BioLogos – big ‘L’? " For me, the omission is simply a result of misplaced momentum, and is not sign of disrespect. So, I will try to form the habit of getting it right (BioLogos). That's not to say that I respect the organization, only that I don't express my disrespect through errors in punctuation.StephenB_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Timaeus @25 I don't disagree with you, but I refrained from arguing along those lines because: (a) Darrel hasn't finished commenting on Dembski's post yet and (b) The issue was not whether evoltionary theory is correct, but whether it is compatible with Christianity. A parallel might be that those of us who find Creation Science to be deficient might well say that Young Earth Creationism is in error - but there is no doubt at all that it is compatible with Christianity. Nobody goes to hell for a mistaken theory of origins - but a deficient view of God can have big consequences.Jon Garvey_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

nullasalus @18
Are you getting the impression that Biologos is changing its tune on these things?
Good question. Complex answer. It seems to me that, for a theistic evolution organisation with Evangelicals as its constituency, BioLogos was nevertheless always heavily biased towards heterodox ideas, especially Open and Process Theology. The staff changes over the last year or so seem to reflect a (non-acknowledged) retreat from that towards, at least, a broader coalition, and the discussion of controversial issues like historical Adam and Eve and philosophy of science has been more balanced - but that means one set of posters comments on articles of one bias, and a different set those of the opposite. But the problem is that many of its biggest hitters and many of its posters subscribe to those theologically unorthodox views, many of the celebrated academic figures associated with TE espouse them and publish on them, and so the list of recommended books reads like a primer on Open Theism. 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."? Yet there is little debate on the site about this. Direct questions are waved away by platitudes or ignored, and many of the straight-ahead Evangelical supporters seem unaware that there's an issue. In short, BioLogos could be a useful umbrella group for those who wish to work out how far Evangelical faith and current science can hold hands. In practice, hitherto, it has been a forum for seeking to neuter Evangelical theology to make it fully compliant with the consensus version of evolution.Jon Garvey_{May 3, 2012
May
05
May
3
03
2012
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm personally quite happy to write "BioLogos" with capital letters. My problem is that I haven't seen a single column on BioLogos, during its entire tenure of existence, in which the Logos (spelled with or without a capital!) is the leading subject of the column. In terms of Greek roots, I see lots of *bios* but not much *Logos* over there. If someone could direct me to any writing on the site where Logos-theology (as found in the Gospel of John, and in the Patristic and Medieval and later traditions) is directly connected with biological matters, I'd be most grateful. If there are such columns, I've simply missed them. It may be the relative silence at BioLogos about the role of the Logos in creation that has caused many commenters here to unconsciously lowercase the "l".Timaeus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

In the meantime, Timaeus has returned (at 11:11 on 02-05-12). It looks like (as nullasalus was even talking of possible changes at BioLogos) he's 'changed his tune' and is now willing to capitalise the 'L' in BioLogos. Bravo to this change-over-time by Timaeus! Will others at UD follow suit, out of respect for their dialogue partners and the higher meaning of Logos? To me, a non-TE, non-EC, the Big 'L' in BioLogos makes an awful lot of difference (and is by far the cleverest 'philosophical' contribution they've made to the science and religion discourse)!Gregory_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Another return to the respect issue: Is it properly called Biologos - small 'l' or BioLogos - big 'L'? In this thread, Bilbo, nullasalus, StephenB and MI use a small 'l', Neil Rickert uses a small 'b' and a small 'l'. What Mytheos said isn't worth repeating. Otoh, News uses a Big 'L', and so does Jon Garvey. 1) Is it not a sign of internet courtesy to speak to people as they ask themselves to be called? 2) Are there people at UD who don't see an ideological difference in incorporating a Big 'L', which speaks directly to, as nullasalus and Alastair just agreed in another thread, that God is actively engage[d] NOW (not in some distant past only) in an ongoing act of creation, and that Creation of the material world by God is an ongoing process, just by appeal to Logos alone, rather than a small 'l' as in Greek -logy? Given the confusion and manipulation between 'small id' and 'Big ID,' one might have thought you folks would be sensitive to this issue and deal with respectful courtesy to properly Name, rather than name-calling. I don't recall, from over 18months being active at BioLogos, any name-manipulating on their behalf of ID or UD...Gregory_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Jon: Your points about Darrel Falk's reply are good. He does seem to avoid "governance" in favor of "sustinence," and the idea of a free, self-creating universe (such as we find in Ken Miller and others) does not fit in easily with the conventional theological language that Falk is trying to appropriate. Whether Falk is disingenuous here, as you suggest, or just plain theologically confused, is hard to tell. It may be a bit of both. For me, however, another point is more central. His reply is gloriously irrelevant to the ID/TE dispute over Darwinian mechanisms. He wants to stress that God doesn't have to work through blatantly "supernatural" actions -- "interventions" and "tinkering" and all those other terms the TE/EC people loathe and ridicule. He wants to say that God's normal activity -- in the rising of the sun and the growth of plants -- is every bit as marvelous and worthy of worship as his special or miraculous actions. Obviously he is setting things up for a future installment in which he will argue that God's glory doesn't require imputing miracles or special interventions in the creative process -- God might well have created life, species and man through wholly natural processes -- and that's a subtler and nobler way of doing it. The irrelevance lies here: (a) There isn't a single ID proponent on the planet who would deny that God's action through the normal course of nature is marvelous, intricate, amazing, worthy of admiration, etc.; the fact that God can and often does work through settled "laws of nature" is not in dispute between ID and TE. What is in dispute is the theological basis of the very pronounced TE preference for non-interventionist accounts of origins -- ID people see no theological reason why "naturalistic" should be the default mode of explanation for origins, whereas TE people (certainly BioLogos TE people, anyway) think that naturalistic explanation is just obviously theologically preferable. (b) It doesn't matter that God *might have* chosen to use wholly natural processes in order to create life, species, and man; what matters is whether the known set of purely natural mechanisms is *adequate* to account for the origin of life, species, and man. ID people say that the known set of mechanisms is nowhere near adequate, and shows no sign of becoming so in the near future. A parallel: the Egyptians "might" have chosen to build the Great Pyramid "wholly naturalistically" by cutting huge blocks of stone, then leaving them piled up in the general area where they wanted the pyramid, and waiting for earthquakes and tornadoes to assemble the stones into the right shape and dimensions; but if science tells us that such a configuration is wildly unlikely to have occurred via unguided mechanisms such as earthquakes and tornadoes, then it's unreasonable to suppose that the Egyptians in fact used such a method, and more reasonable to suppose that they designed the pyramid and then guided its construction through intelligent supervision. Speculations about the preference of the Egyptians for "naturalistic construction" would be ludicrous. The empirical question has to be asked: can unguided mechanisms do it? And indeed, no matter how Falk dodges and feints, his numerous statements on the nature of science and on the so-called evidence for evolution indicate that he believes (though he will never say so directly) that unguided mechanisms can indeed do it, and that God takes no "hands-on" role in creation at all, but merely sets up the natural laws and "sustains" them and lets randomness and necessity take their course, and lo and behold, the infinite creativity of randomness will produce all that we see. Dembski of course disputes this; and the dispute should be settled not by theological speculations about whether God would have preferred naturalistic mechanisms over interventions, but by Falk's provision of detailed evolutionary pathways by which these things might have happened. How odd that Falk, a geneticist, and by his own admission a babe when it comes to theology, so often argues for Darwinian mechanisms on *theological* grounds which he has no intellectual ability to defend, instead of providing *biological* grounds which he presumably does have the ability to defend. But for some reason, he seems to leave the biological heavy lifting to Venema and guest posters like Ussery, and cast himself in the role of theological educator regarding God's motivations and preferences. That he does not see that he is simply not credible as a Christian theologian, having neither formal training nor natural gifts in the subject-matter, says a lot about him, though exactly what it says I am not quite sure.Timaeus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT}

Nullasalus @23, your abbreviated descriptions of the TE positions were truly excellent. All three were accurate and concise, aligning themselves perfectly with the coordinates that I provided. Thank you. Here are my reactions: [a] "Some basically say ‘It was a Darwinian, non-teleological, blind process, and we showed up by luck’, which is ridiculous." I agree that it is ridiculous. Still, it is reasonably coherent. If a non-teleological, Darwinan process is in play, then all outcomes will, indeed, be accidents. It would be even more ridiculous, I think, to say that such a process could produce a specified result since it indicates that the Creator had no specific intent. [b] "Others say ‘It was a non-Darwinian, teleological process, and everything showed up as God intended’." Among the three alternatives, this is, in my judgment, the most reasonable way of understanding evolution. [c] "Still others say, ‘Darwinism, as far as science is concerned, is utterly silent on teleology’s presence or lack. All things, man included, showed up according to this process, as God intended’, which is a bit more nuanced, but still clear." Well, if God achieved the results that he wanted by using an end-directed evolutionary process, then teleology is clearly present and Darwin has left the building. On that same subject, science should speak only to that which it can infer from the data--Darwin's special theory is confirmed, Darwin's general theory is dis-confirmed, and some features in nature are not likely the result of evolution.StephenB_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I think the issue is this: Did God intend and cause evolution to produce a specific result (Homo Sapiens) through a non-Darwinian teleological process or did He somehow craft a Darwinian, non-teleological process that could have produced a different outcome. Fair question. And I think the TEs answers are varied. Some basically say 'It was a Darwinian, non-teleological, blind process, and we showed up by luck', which is ridiculous. Others say 'It was a non-Darwinian, teleological process, and everything showed up as God intended'. Still others say, 'Darwinism, as far as science is concerned, is utterly silent on teleology's presence or lack. All things, man included, showed up according to this process, as God intended', which is a bit more nuanced, but still clear. And others, of course, just hedge and dodge and never say things one way or the other, despite talking a lot. On the other hand, he claims that “Evolution could appear to be driven by chance, but from God’s perspective, the outcome would be entirely specified.” Get it? The outcome is specified, except that it isn’t; the process is chance driven, except that it isn’t. This statement I think is more defensible. Here's another way to possibly put it: An encrypted line of code looks like a complete mish-mash of letters. From the perspective of the decrypter, it looks like a message. Now, I want to be clear. That's THAT specific quote you're giving me, and all I have to run on right now. And I'd object to the claim that something 'appears chance driven'. But the key word there is appearance, not actuality. The person who knows the decryption key could say 'This line of letters appears to be a bunch of confusing nonsense. In reality, it's a highly specified message.' without contradiction.nullasalus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Nullasallus @11 I think the issue is this: Did God intend and cause evolution to produce a specific result (Homo Sapiens) through a non-Darwinian teleological process or did He somehow craft a Darwinian, non-teleological process that could have produced a different outcome. In the "Language of God," Francis Collins seems to argue for both positions (as does Biologos). On the one hand, he defends the "inefficient," chance-driven, Darwinian process that could have produced more than one possible outcome (perhaps a reptile instead of Homo Sapiens). On the other hand, he claims that "Evolution could appear to be driven by chance, but from God's perspective, the outcome would be entirely specified." Get it? The outcome is specified, except that it isn't; the process is chance driven, except that it isn't. Granting evolution (for the sake of argument), one can embrace neo-Darwinism or one can embrace teleology, but not both at the same time. In terms of the final outcome, either God is calling the shots through teleological evolution toward a specified outcome, or nature is calling the shots through non-teleological evolution toward an indeterminate outcome. Collins and Biologos want to have it both ways. It doesn't work that way.StephenB_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Biologos is can only be described as a cult. Akin to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.Mytheos_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

MI, Does anyone know if any TE proponents have hinted at multiverses as a solution…yet? Ruse's guest piece at Biologos explicitly called on the multiverse, if only as a way that God could 'design humans' while Darwinism still being true. That piece is a gold mine, I'm surprised more people haven't hammered away on it. In fact, Ruse pretty much uses your definition.nullasalus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Null, Perhaps Biologos has no choice but to change its position. It has bridled itself to a dead horse, which is stinking to high heaven. Hoping nobody would notice, they've suggested that the horse could draw the theological carriage. Jon, Agreed. And as you may know I have no problem with God as the author of random events, as long as they're still statistically random at the end of the day. Bilbo, Agreed, no logical problem; but the probabilistic one is insanely vast. Why not a multiverse? There's no probabilistic resource problem there (although there is an empirical one). Does anyone know if any TE proponents have hinted at multiverses as a solution...yet? If God can choose to use randomness as a creative force, and since there is no plausible way that could have happened in this universe, why not just let the simulation run until he gets the result he wants. Intelligent selection with random variation seems like a "nice" sort of compromise. xp m.i.material.infantacy_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Jon Garvey, Are you getting the impression that Biologos is changing its tune on these things? Because I am.nullasalus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Bilbo:
By the way, Biologos has the first part of Darrel Falk’s reply to Dembski up. It looks very good.
Did you find it so? I have to say I found the part about God's continuing activity in nature, though absolutely true, rather disingenuous given Darrel's reply to me on a recent BioLogos to the effect that God has created a free, self-creating universe. Bearing in mind that Dembski cites a similar position, in the form of Ruse's "randomness" (also posted on BioLogos), as a challenge to Christian orthodoxy, I would have though it warranted head-on treatment. He then says:
The laws of nature, then, are simply a description of the ongoing activity of God which—because it is so consistent, dependable, and pervasive—points to the trustworthiness of God.
In an autonomous creation, the dependability of God seems a little more problematic. There is a difference between God's sustaining of the world and his government of the world - it is maybe significant that Darrel affirms the former in several Bible quotes, but not the latter. But perhaps the second part will clarify things - I shall look out for it.Jon Garvey_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

material.infantacy The idea has been dead a long, long time:
Nothing could be more certain than that what chance cannot begin the production of in a moment, chance cannot complete the production of in an eternity... what is needed to account for it is not time in any extension, but an adequate cause... We may cast our dice for all eternity with no more likelihood than at the first throw of ever turning up double sevens. (B B Warfield, 1897)
Of course, Warfield as a Calvinist would contend that, actually, God is the author of all chance events. But in that case he would be citing a cause that the naturalists of his day would not admit.Jon Garvey_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

By the way, Biologos has the first part of Darrel Falk's reply to Dembski up. It looks very good.Bilbo I_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

I am an ID proponent, but I have no theological or philosophical objections to Darwinism. Just empirical ones. It seems to me that God could use a truly random process to create and evolve life, given enough probabilistic resources. I don't see a logical problem with that idea. Just an empirical one: It seems that there haven't been enough probabilistic resources for God to have created life that way.Bilbo I_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Just curious: is the proper spelling 'Biologos' or 'BioLogos' and does that make any difference? (Sure, M. Ruse doesn't think it does, but who really gives a flip about what Ruse says anyway?) I'd thought the capital letter 'L' in Logos indicated some uniqueness, even some possibility for reconciliation between TEs/ECs and religious IDers, but perhaps I was wrong. If the capital 'L' is 'reduced/deflated,' perhaps some people will conclude that no Logos makes a difference in biology either. Or it could be just a dismissive, contrarian attitude, like the term 'Christian Darwinist,' when I've not personally confronted a single Christian (other than Ken Millerspeak) who would wish to call themself a 'Darwinist.' No one at BioLogos that I am aware of accepts the label 'Darwinist.' Does anyone here have evidence of direct self-labelling 'BioLogos Darwinist' admission otherwise?Gregory_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

The problem with randomness as it pertains to biological novelty is that the idea is dead. It bears absolutely no fruit in explaining the technological development of life's systems. There are no random (or blind, undirected) causes vindicated for this -- biological complexity requires the purposeful input of significant amounts of intentionally configured information. Nor is randomness compatible with a necessity scenario. Even if one believes that God set up the initial conditions of the universe in such a way as to make life possible -- even inevitable -- the scenario could not have been determined at random; the fine tuning and chemical necessity for such an outcome would be empirically detectible, and by implication non-random. Science is looking inward to the huge array of configured, prescribed systems which are highly specified for expression with variation. Even "heritable variation" is not some simple law of nature, but instead a contingent, sophisticated, intentional function of the machine's internal configuration. There's no room left for randomness, in regard to biological complexity, except as a destructive element; it's putative design capabilities when paired with natural selection are extremely limited. Practically everything an organism does to change across generations is the direct result of it's specified, irreducible complexity.material.infantacy_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Barry, In order to take this line TE’s must say that what appears to be random is in fact specifically intended and thus nonrandom. This does great violence to language. It requires the TE to say random = nonrandom. Further, the TE must also say the “nonrandom” aspect of the process is utterly undetectable by observation, as all observations will appear to show “random.” If the nonrandom aspect of the process is undetectable, what warrant does the TE have for insisting it is fact nonrandom? None it would appear. One problem is that there are multiple types of TE - and for some TEs, 'random' really does mean 'random'. I'll always go back to the Michael Ruse paper on Biologos, where Ruse explicitly made clear that the only position he saw as compatible with Darwinism was full-blown unguidedness. That Ruse made that case without comment from Biologos is pretty damning (even if it's certainly not the view of everyone there.) But for other TEs, it gets a little more complicated. Even if nature at times 'looked' random, the TE can call in all manner of reason to regard it as non-random. Does the TE think Aquinas' Five Ways work? Any philosophical proofs of God's existence? How about a properly basic belief (a la Plantinga) in God's existence? What about inference to the best explanation in other areas (being convinced by miracles and revelation, by inferences from other empirical issues such as cosmological data)? If the TE has reasoning like that on their side, then they have reason to question whether evolution is random no matter what the actual data is. And I don't think it's right to say that "all observation will appear to show "random"". The best you can do is come up with a model that has some random parameters, and figure out if your observations are consistent with your model - that's pretty tame, and it's still fraught with limitation. Especially where evolution is concerned, and the randomness is not only filtered, but is filtered beyond expectation (from the TE perspective: convergent evolution, the workings of the cell, etc.)nullasalus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

I don't quite catch the "great violence to language" part. Could you elaborate? Why in particular 'violence,' rather than say 'confusion' or 'injustice'?Gregory_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

In order to take this line TE’s must say that what appears to be random is in fact specifically intended and thus nonrandom. This does great violence to language.
I take "random" to be a mathematical term from probability theory. As used in real applications, I take it to mean only that the real world situation can be modeled by the mathematics. For my own view of how evolution works, admittedly not a strictly neo-Darwinist view, it does not actually matter whether mutations are random or merely pseudo-random (generated by a deterministic algorithm in such a way that they satisfy tests of randomness). So I don't actually see a problem for TE.Neil Rickert_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 7. Excellent!StephenB_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Neil Rickert writes “My pastor, at that time, used to say “don’t say chance, say God” (and not specifically about evolution).” Yes, this is the standard line taken by theistic evolutionists such as Stephen Barr. In order to take this line TE’s must say that what appears to be random is in fact specifically intended and thus nonrandom. This does great violence to language. It requires the TE to say random = nonrandom. Further, the TE must also say the “nonrandom” aspect of the process is utterly undetectable by observation, as all observations will appear to show “random.” If the nonrandom aspect of the process is undetectable, what warrant does the TE have for insisting it is fact nonrandom? None it would appear. It must be accepted on blind faith and therefore the TE position is the basest sort of fideism.Barry Arrington_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Jason Rennie writes: “If you mean by “Darwinism” something that allows room for a creative intelligence . . .” This is like saying “if you mean by “circular” something that is square . . .” The exact purpose of Darwinian evolution is to account for all of life in a way that completely excludes teleology.Barry Arrington_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply