William Lane Craig calls Michael Behe a theistic evolutionist

_{News
July 31, 2013

Christian Darwinism, News

1}_{Categories
Christian Darwinism
News}

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

Here, in a discussion, saying he is better known for theistic evolution than Francis Collins.

Let us hope so. Francis Collins has accommodated Darwinism to the point of founding BioLogos to proclaim to the world that “Darwinism is a correct science.” Despite everything we have heard and read even in the last few months.

Behe, author of Edge of Evolution (the book you should get and read), is a biochemist who first drew attention to the fatuous claims of tenured profs battening on unexamined Darwinism. The latter are often supported by “Christians for Darwin” groups, who don’t get the problem either: Natural selection — a method for killing things—does not result in complex, interlocking, interrelated innovations.

Behe has focused on the issues. He thinks common descent is a reasonable idea. It might not be true, and the giant viruses are making people wonder. But it is a reasonable idea. We are not going to find out what is until we finally get loose from the phantasms of what isn’t, and blow clear of a religiously motivated need to defend them.

Comments

Thank-you Timaeus and thank-you Jon Garvey, good points, well made. I'll be checking out your links later today.Chris Doyle_{August 2, 2013
August
08
Aug
2
02
2013
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PST}

Chris @#48 I've assessed Francis Collins' position here as well as I can from his writing. He was a key speaker at an Open Theism conference a few years ago at the invitation of co-author Karl Giberson, of which the proceedings seem to be lost, but one attendee wrote that he spoke entirely on the science, so he may well not endorse that particular theology. As for "freedom of creation" theology generally, the "academic" science-faith writers underpinning theistic evolution's theological framework nowadays, such as Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, Howard Van Till, John Haught and even, to an extent, the more conservative Robert J Russell (to name just some) use the "freedom" idea as stock-in-trade. The "cosmic puppetmaster" quote comes from Polkinghorne. More popular writers (including BioLogos contributors) who have espoused it with varying degrees of conviction include Ken Miller, Karl Giberson (who is, like several other well-known TEs, an Open Theist), former BioLogos director Darrel Falk (I had a protracted discussion with him a year or two back, with my first comment about it appearing on my blog here - there are several more pieces on it following if you use "search"), BioLogos board member Dennis Venema, contributor Mike Tice and so on. I would find it much harder to compile a list of the former camp: Population geneticist David L Wilcox comes to mind, and Keith Miller the palaeontologist. They tend not to have written for BioLogos. I've not read of any who openly distance themselves from the "freedom" position. Some "freedom" supporters hedge their bets a little by proposing mechanisms of possible divine action through quantum mechanisms, etc (such are Russell and Polkinghorne), but it's not quite clear how much of such "divine action" would be allowed to God before it becomes a "coercive strait-jacket" forcing creation to be ... well, created, rather than having "freedom to create itself." So in summary, the whole modern TE mindset (possibly since Van Till) has imbibed a trope that evolution = creative autonomy, though in many or most cases it cannot articulate how that squares with orthodox creation theology, nor even formulate it coherently without personalising nature as some kind of entity in dualistic parallel with God (also personalised).Jon Garvey_{August 2, 2013
August
08
Aug
2
02
2013
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PST}

Jerry (50): Yes, the TEs often make the criticism that you have given. But of course it springs from an Enlightenment rather than a Biblical conception of God. The Biblical God is a hands-on God who delights in direct involvement in his creation; the Enlightenment God is a cerebral, distant God who gives nature its powers and then lets it run. The TE negative characterization of a God who is directly involved in evolution, as one who is making "course corrections" or doing "clumsy tinkering," is a sneer based on Enlightenment prejudice. But of course it is no secret that many of the TE leaders are uncomfortable with the Biblical God, which is why BioLogos has to run so many columns convincing evangelicals to read the Bible differently. They want to convince evangelicals that the Bible really teaches a God who is entirely acceptable to educated, middle-class modern people, and that all descriptions of God and God's activity found in the Bible which are incompatible with modern conceptions are merely adaptations of the Biblical truth to the primitive misconceptions of the time. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the TEs were on to something legitimate here; let's suppose that it would be a higher, nobler conception of God and of creation if God, instead of actively involving himself, "set up" the evolutionary process to produce the desired outcomes naturally; the problem is that the neo-Darwinian process embraced by the TEs can't do that. It can't guarantee any particular outcome, not even man, not even an intelligent being. Neo-Darwinian evolution has no inbuilt teleology. For outcomes to be guaranteed, the evolutionary process would have to have tendencies built into it, and therefore it would have to proceed as suggested by Michael Denton, who rejects the neo-Darwinian model or, perhaps, by Simon Conway Morris, who appears to be flirting with seriously modifying it. So there is a misfit between the "planned evolution" of the TE theology and the neo-Darwinian evolution of TE biology. Further, even if some way could be found to reconcile the non-directedness of neo-Darwinian evolution with specific evolutionary outcomes desired by God, it is not even clear that TEs *like* the idea of planned evolutionary outcomes from a theological point of view. Miller, Venema and Falk have all made comments against such a conception as smacking of a "tyrant" God or of a theology which is "Calvinist" (that last term always voiced with subtle tones of disapproval). Against this, they have set a theology of "freedom" in which nature is "free" because God is not a tyrant, but a loving parent who lets it express itself creatively. So evolution is not constrained by fixed ends decreed by God, and that's a darned good thing, say some of the TE leaders. No matter which way you look at it, TE is a theological dog's breakfast. It has no clear theology, just a mixed-up mess of theological conceptions tossed together like a salad. It is true that there are a few individual TEs who have serious knowledge of theology -- almost none of them biologists, I add -- but on the whole the TEs do not know Christian theology very well at all. I thus find it hard to take their sneers against the supposed faults of "the ID God" seriously. When one of them produces an academically competent and doctrinally orthodox piece of theology, I'll pay more attention.Timaeus_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PST}

Is it worth asking what you think is "self-contradictory" about the nuances I have described?Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PST}

Elizabeth Liddle:
So there are nuances in the Darwinian position too, I’d say
Since when have self-contradictory positions qualified as nuances?Mung_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PST}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Also, I’d say the one thing Darwin really didn’t get right was the role of drift. I’d say evolutionary thinking has moved away from extreme adaptionism, to a much a more general formula that says that populations evolve because in heritable variance, and adapt because of heritable variance in reproductive success, the latter resulting in a biased sampling of the former.
Don't you ever get tired of contradicting yourself? such nonsense. you have a doctorate, am I right?Mung_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PST}

Elizabeth Liddle:
So there are plenty of “Darwinists” who are certainly not “IDists”, but who nonetheless have plenty of holes to pick in “neo-Darwinism” as in genes-are-everything. They clearly aren’t!
LOL! Sure, set "Darwinism" back 100 years! What "Neo-Darwinism" did was to put Darwninism (a mere system of belief up to that time) on a mathematical and thus scientific foundation. So sure, toss that out and return to just-so stories and hand-waving. Whatever it is, it isn't science.Mung_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PST}

Although I’m still curious to know why people think finch-beak size changes are something different from macroevolution.
Couple things. Because this use of term, macro evolution, in this example trivializes the term to the point it is meaningless. Maybe we need to agree on another term to describe the phenomena that everybody cares about. Second, is it a shift in the frequency of the gene pool? Or is it something else? The appearance and disappearance of the different beak sizes may have nothing to do with the frequency of genes in the gene pool. It may be eipigenetic changes caused by different environments which causes different genes to be expressed. Which case is it evolution at all let alone macro evolution? Also the most knowledgeable people on the finches, Rosemary and Peter Grant said it takes 20-30 million years to get to a population that does not inner breed. And then they will not look that much different. So is this macro evolution? No body cares a rat's rear end about this process or should I say a finches' front end.jerry_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PST}

Elizabeth: The article I linked to above -- from a scientific journal, not an ID or creationist work -- contains a good general discussion of the micro/macro vocabulary and of some of the theoretical questions associated with it. Here is the link again: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full And just to be clear, I am not stating as a fact that microevolutionary changes *cannot* accumulate over time to produce macroevolutionary change. I am stating only what is obvious from the peer-reviewed literature, i.e., that there is a diversity of views, and always has been a diversity of views, among evolutionary biologists on the question whether macroevolutionary change is merely long-term microevolutionary change piled up, or whether it involves other kinds of change. The neo-Darwinians, of course, have almost always (to my knowledge) taken the former position, but some other evolutionary biologists have been skeptical of it. And yes, you are right, I was not arguing that macroevolution was false if (hypothetically speaking) neo-Darwinism is false. Neo-Darwinism might prove to be a fatally flawed understanding of the mechananism, yet the macroevolutionary process might still be real. As you know, many ID folks reject not only neo-Darwinian mechanisms, but macroevolution itself, but Behe is not in that category. I'm not undertaking here to further discuss evolutionary mechanisms, so I won't be trying to answer your final question. I'm merely clarifying what my comments to Chris Doyle meant. Basically all I was trying to say to Chris was that Behe accepts "evolution" as the man on the street employs the term (a process of change over time from one-celled creatures to all subsequent creatures, including man), but thinks that the evolutionary process was somehow shaped by an intelligent design. And that is not controversial, as Behe has stated this many times.Timaeus_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PST}

Timaeus - I misread a sentence you wrote. I thought you were implying that the anti-neo-Darwinist trend in mainstream biology was also querying "macroevolution". I see now that you weren't. Although I'm still curious to know why people think finch-beak size changes are something different from macroevolution. Is it because people think that they can only move as far as the gene pool allows?Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PST}

Hang on a minute. The mainstream scientists who are picking holes in "neo-Darwinism" aren't saying that macroevolution isn't Darwinian, I don't think! Yes, macro-evolution is extended micro-evolution, with the possible exception of a few very rare events, such as, possibly, the symbiosis that probably got us our eukaryotic nucleus. I don't think macro-evolution is in serious contention by mainstream people who query the "neo-Darwinian" emphasis on genes. Does anyone have any citations to support this idea? Speciation is different to microevolution, but I don't think that's what people are talking about here. Timaeus, what are you referring to by the term "macroevolution"?Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PST}

Timaeus, Thank you for your clarifications. They are always useful. I don't want to get into too much minutiae but one of the feelings I have gotten from the TE/ID debate is that the TE's believe ID trivializes God. ID portrays Him as the tinkerer who can't seem to get it right and who must from time to time re-do the gene pools. Whether He does it through direct intervention or through some remote way such as quantum mechanics, it means a course correction. This is not an entity deserving of the characteristics omniscience or omnipotent but one that needs to continue experimenting to get it right. Thus, the TE's simply would prefer a magnificent intellect that could set initial boundary conditions to produce the life we see today and then leave it alone for all of us to admire and celebrate. A process that did not need constant course corrections. Thus, TE's prefer this to get an omniscience/omnipotent God and the atheists prefer this to get no god. Interesting situation. I am not sure that the TE's like the atheists would care if the process was guided by a mechanism other than natural selection and constant mutations. But it is the only process they have at the moment even if it is an ineffective one. Each group embraces it for their own particular ideological reasons. And each would abandon this mechanism if another proved better because they know it is not an adequate process. There is the additional issue of YEC's and many TE's do not want to be associated with YEC science and I know that this is what drives many of them. This has all been stated before several times. Any comments?jerry_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PST}

Chris Doyle: Thanks for your irenic response. It is certainly true that neo-Darwinism (Modern Synthesis, mid-20th-century, which has lots of adherents still around, especially in the general culture but also among the professionals) thinks of macroevolution as merely extended microevolution. But there have always been some evolutionary theorists with doubts about the extension, both in the old days and in more recent times. There is a good historical article on the various uses of the term "macroevolution" here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full The article, as you can tell from the title, discusses the question we have raised. I did not mean to complicate things with the term "macroevolution." Originally I planned to say merely that Behe accepts "evolution," but thinks that there was intelligent guidance or planning involved somewhere in the process. But since some people would quarrel over the simple term "evolution," arguing that it can mean mere microevolution, I wanted to be as clear as possible what Behe believes. And he does believe in large-scale genetic continuity, not merely between blue-eyed and green-eyed fruit flies, or microbes with and without antibiotic resistance, but between things like dogs and bears, reptiles and mammals, invertebrates and vertebrates. We are *descended*, Behe thinks, from marine invertebrates. Not by sheer chance, and not without the operation of intelligence, but still, we are *descended* from these things. And descent from so-called "lower" forms is what most people mean by "evolution." If you ask someone on the street, a common person who is not a science geek but has a general education, if he believes in evolution, he will assume that you mean, does he believe that he is descended from some slimy sea-creature? He will not assume that you are asking him merely whether finch beaks can lengthen or whether populations of peppered moths change their color over time. In that sense, Behe is an evolutionist. By saying "macroevolution" rather than just "evolution" I was trying to cut off any view which says that Behe only accepts "microevolution." He accepts change on the large scale, not just on the small scale. If you don't call that "macroevolution," you can call it just plain "evolution," but Behe accepts it. And that is what separates Behe from most of the other leading ID theorists (though if appears that Sternberg accepts evolution in this sense, and certainly Michael Denton does). I maintain my position that Craig introduces confusion into the discussion by calling Behe a theistic evolutionist. What Craig probably means is right, but given the special sense that "theistic evolutionist" now has acquired, it is confusing and misleading. It would be the same if Craig called Behe a "gay fellow," meaning, by "gay," cheery, light-hearted, playful, full of joie de vivre, etc. (Which was of course the normal meaning of the word "gay" when Craig and I were children.) Craig might well be right in what he meant, but today it would be taken in the wrong way. It's best to avoid such confusions if one can. I add one more thing: I did not mean to give the impression that modern TE emerged *only* out of the reactions of ex-YECS. It had other sources as well. There are TE proponents who are not products of reaction against fundamentalism. (People like Ted Davis and Stephen Barr come to mind.) But many of the leaders of modern TE were YECs or OECs (more often YEC than OEC). Some of these include: Lamoureux, Venema, Falk, Giberson, Isaac, and -- though I haven't confirmed this -- possibly Murphy. And in addition to these *leaders*, there are many *followers* of TE who used to be YECs as well. Some of them are now members of the ASA (American Scientific Affiliation), and others, though not members, have participated in ASA forums. The case may be different for British TEs, since the Christian culture in Britain is different from that of the USA. But in the USA, the rise of YEC in the 1960s colored all discussion of evolution, and the ugly intra-Christian battles it gave rise to in the 60s, 70s, and 80s have left permanent scars on some of the participants, on both the creationist and TE side. ID has been unable to escape being part of the "collateral damage" in these battles, even though it has taken great pains to distinguish itself from creationism.Timaeus_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

Good stuff, Jon Garvey. Of course, when theistic evolutionists talk about "the freedom of creation" they are simply inventing creation myths to conceal the fact that they lack the courage of their convictions! How can anyone study the Book of Scripture (and I always use that term loosely and inclusively) and think that God was "pleasantly surprised" by mankind? Plainly nonsense. Surely this kind of TE is in the extreme minority? I think Francis Collins would disown that creation myth.Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PST}

“Was God surprised when mankind appeared?” That belief (that God was surprised, but pleased) is tied in with a whole theology of "the freedom of creation". A God who dictates outcomes, be they okapis, broccoli or H. sapiens, would be (quote)"a cosmic puppetmaster", and worse. So design is not just mistaken scientifically, but unworthy of God. Nobody seems able to explain just what it is in "nature" that appreciates this freedom, or resents being deprived of it - I've been asking in vain on BioLogos for getting on for two years now. Seems to me that the entities most likely to consider freedom - ie the highest organisms - have no choice at all about whether they evolve or go extinct. Perfect love is self-giving, ie it must let creation go its own way, even though that risks evil (and that includes, according to people like Francisco Ayala) viruses, guineas worms, wisdom teeth and Junk DNA. So "nature" is a bit like "the people" in Communism - "the people" is free, but you can't actual find any real individuals who are. It's a pretty tale, and forms a good basis for a religion - but in my view, not the one that Christ and his apostles and prophets proclaimed. That's why there is a strong leaning towards process theology, panentheism, open theism and divine kenosis in modern theistic evolution - they all support that kind of libertarianism. Kind of reflects much of American Evangelicalsim in that... and we're not immune from it here in the UK either.Jon Garvey_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PST}

Hi Jon Garvey, you've highlighted an important distinction indeed. I've often thought about this question, when thinking about TE: "Was God surprised when mankind appeared?" If the answer is no, then that opens up a path to ID. If the answer is yes, then that opens up a path to atheism. If science prevails, then your first lot of TE will surely feel intellectually fulfilled for the first time in their lives: especially now that they can kick the ugly bedfellows out (all the God-hating atheists!)Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PST}

I can... but seen as it's you, I won't :-PChris Doyle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PST}

Chris, the big divide within theistic evolution, not always admitted or fully realised, is between those who believe God wanted okapis or tarantulas or broccoli, and got them, and those who believe he didn't, but was more or less pleased when they created themselves, despite perceived shortcomings. The first lot may or may not baulk at the word "design", but at root actually believe in it, since intention coupled to accomplishment is, willy nilly, design. The second lot may quite truthfully say "God works through evolution", but in the same sense that avant garde artists "work" through throwing paint at a wall - or at most, like a "facilitator" who provides facilities for a bunch of kids to "be creative", expecting no particular outcome but affirming them warmly anyhow for turning up. As Timaeus says, the latter view seems to be most prevalent nowadays, in sharp contrast to theistic supporters of evolution in the 19th century. But I suspect that the former is closer to what many outside, and a good number inside, the scientific community, actually believe. Quite why there is not a clear demarcation between those two views, rather than the existing line drawn between "TE" and "ID", is a mystery to me. The first deserves the name "evolutionary creationism", whereas the second is light years away from the Judaeo-Christian doctrine of creation, and a lot closer to Douglas Futuyma's concept of "coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection".Jon Garvey_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST}

#41 Chris That's great. Perhaps you could point us to some examples of where you have been refuted, acknowledged it, unequivocally, and never made it again.Mark Frank_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PST}

So, Young Earth Creationism is hugely embarrassing, and we are advised to read our Bibles not with a current-science-filter, but rather how it was intended and how people of the time would have understood it. So, when the Hebrews, without possibility of our current-science-filter, read or had Genesis told them, they would have understood . . . Adam being formed out of the ground, from the dust of the Earth, as really meaning "He had a Daddy like you and me."? W.L.C., you were hugely embarrassing in your twelve minute video.Brent_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PST}

Only when it comes to you, Mark "Subjective is the new Objective" Frank ;-)Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PST}

Hi Timaeus, thank you for a courteous, thoughtful and informative response. Firstly, I will make one last attempt to clear up the confusion between us. The idea that Behe is a TE, presented in the OP, was one that I basically disagreed with. But, I was curious as to how it was that anyone, particularly from our side of the divide line, could think he was. I was presented with the idea that anyone who believed that "God could have worked through evolution" could be described as a TE, even Behe who is ID! My response to that notion (which remember, was not mine in the first place) was that if you can be, like Behe, someone who believes that God could have worked through evolution AND considered pro-ID then the same should apply to other TEs: like Miller and Matzke (who it turns out, is not a TE as I believed, rather an AE (agnostic evolutionist), so he is now excluded from that possibility). It all turns on that qualifying statement that was on offer at the beginning of the discussion: "God could have worked through evolution" Because, to my mind, that statement suggests a way for all TEs to be ID too. I agree, I could have elaborated further in the first place, but it was just a quick, almost casual comment I was making, late at night, after a few beers, here in the UK just before I hit the sack. When you then asked me where Matzke said he was a TE, I made an even quicker search for the post I got that impression from, found it a bit vague so - really quickly now - tried to find something meatier. Too quick because I ended up on another author's blog entry without realising it. And, the funny thing is, it was all because I was eager to please and avoid a long delay responding to you while I slept :-) And we'll agree to disagree about macro-evolution (though your second post brings your definition much closer to mine: my only quibble the first time around was the emphasis you placed on common descent over evolution from one species to another. Certainly, most evolutionists believe that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes. We both agree, by that definition, Behe does not accept macroevolution). Anyway, the take home point (apart from sleeping on it next time!) is that any theistic evolutionist, or indeed, evolutionary creationist who truly believes that God used evolution to turn microbes into man is deluding themselves if they think that that is NOT a process of Intelligent Design. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments you made in this respect. Finally, thank-you for the historical explanation into the origins of modern TE, emerging from ex-YECs. That was new to me: it makes a lot of sense and explains the hostility very well too.Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PST}

Chris #35
Perhaps the best way to achieve and sustain that is playing by the rules of civilised debate: so when your argument fails, acknowledge it, unequivocally, and never make it again. Don’t say “yes, but…” or simply ignore the rebuttal. Definitely don’t recycle the same refuted argument!
Chris - am I right in thinking that your experience is that you are always the one doing the refuting and never the one that is refuted?Mark Frank_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PST}

Correction to 36 above, penultimate paragraph: I wrote: "... atheist commenters get less interference from BioLogos moderators than TE and YEC commenters get" I should have written: "... atheist commenters get less interference from BioLogos moderators than ID and YEC commenters get" Sorry for any confusion.Timaeus_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PST}

Thanks, Mark Frank and Elizabeth, for your understanding of the contents and tonal intentions of my comments. I agree that current evolutionary theory is more than classical neo-Darwinism (by which I mean the mid-20th century Modern Synthesis), though you would never guess that from reading Ken Miller or the gang at BioLogos. I also surmise that evolutionary theory will move further and further away from neo-Darwinism as time moves on, and that this will be to the good of science (and also, incidentally, of theology) but I won't debate or discuss that proposition here.Timaeus_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PST}

Chris Doyle: I am sorry for how my post came across to you. I was not trying to be patronizing but merely clarifying. I find that a lot of time gets wasted on this site (and other sites about evolution, creation, and design, explaining the same things over and over again). When it's to a newcomer, I don't mind; but when it's to someone who has been around a while, I may sound slightly impatient. (Petrushka and Nakashima, for example, would raise the same objections to ID, based on misuses of terms, over and over again, and never seemed to remember clear explanations given to them mere weeks or even days earlier.) You say you understand the terms, yet the way you reason from them still suggests that perhaps you don't. For example, you still write: "I then pointed out in post 4 that if an Intelligent Design proponent can be a theistic evolutionist (as post 2 implied) then that would make Matzke and Miller ID proponents too." And the only error you acknowledge is the error about Matzke's religious position. Yet aside from Matzke, either you are misusing the terms, or your logic is flawed. The mere fact that *some* ID proponents could also be classed as theistic evolutionists, does not imply that Miller (a TE) *would* be (as opposed to "might" be) an ID proponent. It depends of course on how the two categories are related: are all ID proponents TE proponents, are all TE proponents ID proponents, are some ID proponents TE proponents, or are some TE proponents ID proponents? Nothing you have written up to this point suggests that you have established the relationship between the categories very clearly in your own mind -- which is why I wrote what I wrote, to help you nail it down. If this further criticism of your expression seems to you patronizing or unnecessary, you can ignore it. I mean no offense. I also disagree with you about "macroevolution" -- which, though commonly associated with RM + NS, need not be. Its broad reference is to the set of processes which turn a reptile into a mammal or a bacterium into Beethoven; it is contrasted with microevolution, which refers to small changes, e.g., antibiotic resistance, or beak length. A lively debate among evolutionary biologists, which is still not settled, is whether the same "mechanisms" that produce microevolution produce macroevolution, merely by being extended over a longer period of time, or whether there are special mechanisms for the larger changes, e.g., major novelties in biological form. Behe certainly accepts "macroevolution" in the sense that he thinks that large-scale changes, beyond anti-biotic resistance and beak length, have happened. (For example, he thinks that the human body is derived from the body of much smaller and less intelligent primate ancestors.) Where he differs from the neo-Darwinists is over: (1) His openness to the possibility of supernatural guidance in the process; (2) His openness to the possibility of pre-programming of the process; (3) His view that the microevolutionary changes cited by neo-Darwinists are insufficient, even extended over long periods of time, to produce major new body plans. Of course, quarreling over terms isn't useful. If you want to define "macroevolution" more narrowly, in a way that excludes Behe, that is fine, but you have to make sure you have your audience with you. I haven't taken a survey of how everyone here uses the term "macroevolution," but as the term "macroevolution" is typically used, I'd say Behe accepts macroevolution. What he doesn't accept is the *mechanism* proposed to explain macroevolution. Again, I hope I don't sound patronizing. Let me explain where I am coming from. Several years ago, my mind was bewildered by the way words were used in these debates, so I sat down and systematically read entire long books by Darwin, ID proponents, ID critics, TE proponents, etc., and I spent a few years following the debates on the internet to observe how various people used the terms. What I've given you is my digest, and a way of using the terms that (a) is to my mind roughly consistent and non-confusing; and (b) is accepted by most ID proponents at least. I can't force you to use my language, and wouldn't want to force you even if I could, as I believe in freedom of speech and thought. But if our language doesn't match, we won't get very far in conversation. To end on a note of agreement: I agree that TE and ID proponents should have more in common than either does with the atheists. After all, they both, based on the Bible and Christian tradition (I'm speaking here of the majority of ID people, who are Christian) believe in a God who creates the world, and who planned "before" he created (see Genesis 1), i.e., who had in mind a design for his world and for its creatures. Nonetheless, we observe in practice that BioLogos columnists spend more time attacking ID proponents than they do attacking atheists, and that atheist commenters get less interference from BioLogos moderators than TE and YEC commenters get. And TEs such as Ken Miller and Steve Matheson and Denis Lamoureux have willingly tag-teamed with atheist/agnostic anti-ID folks in debates, against ID people; never has a TE tag-teamed with an ID person against the atheists. The TEs of today clearly don't like the ID position and work actively against it. This suggests that their loyalty to neo-Darwinism is more important to them as a guide to debating decisions than their desire to combat Coyne, Dawkins, etc. There is also a theological issue, in that many if not most of the leading TEs are fideists, i.e., believe as a matter of principle that we can have no knowledge of God at all outside of revelation. Design inferences are therefore to them not only scientifically objectionable but theologically objectionable. All of this is part of the explanation, though only part, for the counterintuitive result that TE and ID people are at each other's throats all the time, and never functioning as allies. For the rest, I think you need to understand something about American evangelical culture from about 1960 to the present. The meteoric rise of Young Earth Creationism in the 1960s altered things greatly. Many TE leaders are former YECs who rebelled, and were demonized by their former YEC friends for selling out to materialism, humanism, etc. They have responded by treating YEC leaders as dumb country cousins who don't know any science. The dislike between those two sides is intense. And some ID arguments resemble YEC arguments (not the Biblical arguments, the scientific ones), and that reminds the TE leaders of what they fought the fight of their lives against. Anything that smells of YEC, even if it isn't YEC, rubs American TE leaders the wrong way. It strikes a personal nerve. Of course all of this has nothing to do with the truth of falsehood of any position, but is merely pscyhological and sociological. But you asked why there isn't more common ground between ID and TE, and such personal and historical questions are part of the answer to that.Timaeus_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PST}

Hi Lizzie, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t agree in the nicest possible way… because normally, I don’t disagree in the nicest possible way, as you know ;-) I think the choice of words people use, and the optional extra personal remarks they include, tell us a lot about tone. Then, of course, there is the content itself: what people are actually saying, the scene they set, often conveys tone. What people are not saying, by evasion or some other deliberate omission, also says a lot about tone. I personally have no problem whatsoever with people debating with confidence in their position, and disagreeing in the strongest terms. In fact, I prefer it… I only have a problem when they can’t back it up. I hate time-wasters! Frankly, it’s all rather unnecessary: we should all be able to discuss things in a manner where tone is not a factor because opponents are treated with as much respect and courtesy as proponents. Perhaps the best way to achieve and sustain that is playing by the rules of civilised debate: so when your argument fails, acknowledge it, unequivocally, and never make it again. Don’t say “yes, but…” or simply ignore the rebuttal. Definitely don’t recycle the same refuted argument! Tone only becomes a factor when people don’t respect their opponents (or even proponents) and don’t play by the rules. And, even if you do respect your opponents, that will all be undone by breaking the rules. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty, which also comes across as disrespect.Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PST}

think that the pattern that IDists are picking up in biology is a very real and interesting pattern
One of the main tenets of ID
it signifies something very special
Interesting, yes. But nothing proposed so far even makes a little dent in the basic problem, the origin of complex new and substantially different biological systems.
I just don’t think it signifies intentional design
The absence of an answer to the origin of complexities is what gives the ID argument, plausibility. This is the theme of Meyer's two books. Extreme complexity and preciseness in inter acting systems is the finding. The conclusion is leading more and more to design by default. No naturalistic approach can explain the basic issue. Nothing on the horizon that comes close to an explanation except design.
It’s pretty darn smart though.
Science marches on. In this case the smartness may be the complete undermining of the various modern versions of the Darwinian theory. It may be that some of what Darwin saw as natural selection might have been epigenetic factors designed to allow organisms to adapt to new environments. See Pigliucci who says that there is no known mechanism for macro-evolution http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGAES This is also a good history of the evolution of evolutionary thinking. Meyer is just way ahead of Pigliucci.jerry_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PST}

Elizabeth:
Also, I’d say the one thing Darwin really didn’t get right was the role of drift.
Drift doesn't do anything and Darwin said natural selection is a designer mimic and to date there isn't any evidence to support that claim.Joe_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PST}

Chris:
Timaeus, I know you’re trying to be helpful, but you come across as very patronising and uptight. Please modify your tone accordingly.
I've come to the conclusion that "tone" is extremely difficult to interpret on the internet! Timaeus has made identical criticisms of my tone. It's extraordinarily difficult to disagree with someone online without sounding either aggressive or patronising. Some people manage it superbly (vjtorley for one!) Others sound fine to some people and excruciating to others. Personally I find it far more insulting to be told I am intellectually dishonest than to be told I am a pillock! But for others it's going to be different. I end up scattering these stupid smileys all over, almost as reflexively as I smile, but that clearly irritates people to. But when I don't, people mistake my tone! A friend of mine used to have in his signature, something like: "Of course I think I'm right! If I didn't, I'd think something different!" If we didn't think we were right it would be a little worrying. So I guess we are all prone to sounding as though we think we are!Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next