Dinesh D’Souza as an example of why so many Christian intellectuals accept evolution

_{William Dembski

September 6, 2009

Atheism, Darwinism, Evolution}

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

With my new book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY coming out shortly and with the publisher positioning it as a counterblast to the neo-atheist literature, I’m boning up on that literature as well as on the responses to it. Dinesh D’Souza’s response has much to commend it, but he drops the ball on evolution. Not only is his scholarship sloppy on this point (for instance, he fails to distinguish the younger C. S. Lewis, who largely had no problem with evolution, from the later C. S. Lewis, who did), but he justifies taking the side of evolution on the basis of an argumentum ad populum:

I am not a biologist, but what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution. While the debate goes on, it seems improbable that the small group fo intelligent design advocates is right and the entire community of biologists is wrong. Consider what two leading Christian biologists say about evolution. Kenneth Miller writes, “Evolution is as much a fact as anyting we know in science,” and Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Unfortunately, much of the Christian intellectual world (from Christianity Today to the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities) is willing to sign off on evolution for just such reasons. It’s why we need to keep focusing on winning the younger generation.

Comments

Stephen: The Trebino story shows the root-problem at work: basic loss of respect for truth and fairness to others, AKA incivility. It is not just on Darwinism, but across a lot of issues, whether labelled science, education, environment, "reproductive rights" (NOT right to life], etc etc. It crops up in the complaints over Wikipedia's hit pieces in the name of "knowledge," and it is in the textbooks, mass market books, monographs, journals, conference proceedings, lecture courses, museums, newspaper and magazine columns, TV Channels and web sites etc that are too often putting up misleading shadow-shows that are too often standing in for the truth. And, should someone protest, they will be lucky if it stops at distractions [changing the subject, reframing it rhetorically and manipulatively -- red herrings] led away to distortions [poisonous and personally destructive attacks based on ad hominem laced strawman caricatures] and demonisation or belittling based dismissals. Our intellectual culture is in trouble, and it is in trouble in ways that directly point to widespread avalanching breakdown of the quality of decision-making and of basic justice. We need to remember that one reason why Syria, the Levant and Egypt fell so easily to the Caliphs and their warriors in C7, was that the people there had for decades and even centuries felt that they were getting a raw deal from the powers that be in the Byzantine empire and had no hope within the system. I ask the ever so eager defenders of darwinism: what happens when large numbers of people begin to conclude that institutionalised, taxpayer-funded science in our day is irretrievably broken and on a priori agendas is locked into an inherently, inescapably amoral system of thought -- evolutionary materialism -- that enables abuses of all sorts? Could it come down to: "The helots are coming, the helots are coming!" GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

----Cabal: "Whereas on the other hand, both with respect to ideologies and religions – they are poor on facts. Taking at random the Christian religion as an example, it is built entirely on the Bible, not on verifiable facts. It is all about allegations about events for which no tangible evidence exists. Even the alleged evidence turns out to be just allegations about evidence." Thank you for proving my point. When Darwinists are asked to produce evidence in support of their fantasies, they promptly change the subject, reframe the issue, and go on the attack. They are always on offense, never on defense---always scrutinizing, never being scrutinized.StephenB_{September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

Cabal: I think you need to look at the Trebino story to see yet another canary choking in the mines of science, to see that something is very wrong with the system, but the pit bosses are ignoring the dying birds in their haste to keep the pit working. As far as your dismissal on the foundations of the Judaeo-Christian view -- that "Taking at random the Christian religion as an example, it is built entirely on the Bible, not on verifiable facts . . . " -- are concerned, this simply reflects that you have clearly not done your homework on the grounding facts, epistemological issues and arguments. (H'mm: only experts are qualified to speak on the warrant for science but anyone can object on the most cursory and one-sided grounds on matters of a religion foundational to our culture and that has had a world class intellectual tradition for 20 centuries. Do you think that men like Paul -- originally a strident critic who actually used the power of the sword against Christianity -- or Augustine or Anselm or Aquinas or Calvin or Wesley or an F F Bruce or a John Stott or a Gary Habermas or the like -- picking at random almost -- easily fit into the strawman you have just sketched? Remember, it is in significant part on exchanges with Habermas that the formerly no 1 philosophical atheist of our time has moved towards theism.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

"it’s rational for a layperson to trust the scientific consensus" "it is not about the merits of arguments" Amazing.Upright BiPed_{September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

School is a good venue for Darwinists to oppress children who are powerless to raise intellectual objections. A blog is a good place for Darwinists to test their theories against those who can evaluate the merits of their arguments
Interesting. That's the problem children are faced with; they are powerless against all kinds of indoctrination - in school or at home. Hitler exploited that fact, as do all totalitarian regimes. There’s a difference though. Science is not taught as absolute truth; it is made clear that nothing in science is proven. It is all theory, based on the best possible interpretation and explanation of the facts. And the facts are freely available to anyone to examine for themselves and make up their own mind about whether they want to believe that the theory is a faithful representation of the facts and our current understanding of nature. Whereas on the other hand, both with respect to ideologies and religions – they are poor on facts. Taking at random the Christian religion as an example, it is built entirely on the Bible, not on verifiable facts. It is all about allegations about events for which no tangible evidence exists. Even the alleged evidence turns out to be just allegations about evidence. I would like to learn more about the qualifications of those ‘who can evaluate the merits’ of science. In the end it is not about the merits of arguments; it is about the validity of the science. While it may be true that science extrapolate from the known to what it does not (yet) know, the fact remains that ID is only the extrapolation of alleged limitations to nature.Cabal_{September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

---Learned Hand: "You keep assuming that the opinions of laypersons are an adequate substitute for the work of experts. If a layperson could sum up the field of biology so easily, we wouldn’t need biologists, would we? If you want to know how biologists defend their positions, ask a biologist." Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs. I too, have asked the biologists to present evidence for their claims, and they have no answers. This is an open forum. If they had the goods, they would produce them. For them, the name of the game is to scrutinize ID advocates while exempting themselves from being scrutinized. That is why they are always on offense and never on defense. Or haven't you noticed? ----"This is a blog. If you want to understand biology, the proper venue is a school." School is a good venue for Darwinists to oppress children who are powerless to raise intellectual objections. A blog is a good place for Darwinists to test their theories against those who can evaluate the merits of their arguments. Each time they are challenged, they respond much the same way you did, insisting that this isn't the right time or the right place.StephenB_{September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

I note Mr. Hayden's comments seeking to support the view that C. S. Lewis retracted his views on theistic evolution. I am aware of the Acworth-Lewis correspondence and have read it in full. What is interesting to note is the end result of that correspondence. Though Acworth sought to enlist Lewis in his cause against evolution Lewis refused to be drawn further into the debate. Furthermore, Lewis never revised "The Problem of Pain" as he revised "Miracles" after his debate with Elizabeth Anscombe. The supposed comments by Lewis about a historical Adam in A. N. Wilson's biography are interesting. However, we do not have those comments in Lewis's own hand. So I still think it is ill advised to try to enlist Lewis against theistic evolution when in his written comments on the subject he is clearly for it.Will Vaus_{September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Learned:
You named a philosopher and an MD, neither of whom would qualify as an “expert” (in my opinion) in any scientific field related to this debate.
I would agree if we were talking genome mapping, study of microbiological function, and other actual empirical science. We are not. Darwinism and the evolutionary theory attached to it is a philosophy which attempts to explain the hard facts, and forensically (not empirically) to prove it. Antony Flew fits. Until cross-class evolution is empirically documented, Darwinism cannot be an empiric science. Since not even cross-species evolution has been empirically documented (and I as an IDist have little problem with cross-species evolution), it cannot be empiric. Philosophy is good, forensic truth is valid, so I have little problem with Darwinism as a valid pursuit. But ID is proving far more valid in its ability to predict and to retain logical cohesion as empiric facts are provided -- which are the two measurements of forensic science.
Like astrologers are in the astronomy community.
It is beneath you to continue to use a deliberately poor correlation. Astrologers and astronomers don't debate the subject. A correct correlation would be between tectonics advocates and their subsider opponents, or between Galileo and the Aristotelean college.
I don’t credit ID’s complaints about the shadowy conspiracy of expulsive biologists.
Again, that's beneath you. Any knowledge of science history demonstrates amply that nearly every scientific paradigm change comes with suppression -- tectonics, heliocentrism, phlogistonists, etc. It's the nature of man.
But people have been predicting the death of “Darwinism” since long before I was born.
You'll be waiting a lot longer. Darwinism can never die. It has been around in other forms since the Greeks and before. As long as there are materialists, there will be Darwinism in one form or another.SpitfireIXA_{September 11, 2009
September
09
Sep
11
11
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

The problem is that evolution, even in the former sense, makes natural selection and naturalistic mechanisms like it, the basis for evolutionary change. Well, that is the basis for evolutionary change. :-) Now does evolutionary change explain everything, well . . .tribune7_{September 10, 2009
September
09
Sep
10
10
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Sorry for the late responses. Jerry, I have and they have punted. We have regular biologist and evolutionary biologists here and none would even step up to the plate. This is a blog. If you want to understand biology, the proper venue is a school. Clive, And, of course, it is always the position of science to hold a theory provisionally, because it is always a logical possibility that another assumption explains more of the phenomena with even less assumptions. Yes. Which is why it’s rational for a layperson to trust the scientific consensus—it adjusts itself over time to fit the evidence. Defining consensus, which isn’t really a consensus, and then arguing, as Dinesh does, that there is no disagreement, and coming to a conclusion that the “consensus” must then be “true” is faulty. You’re overstating D’Souza’s point. He argues, as I read the excerpt above, not that the consensus is necessarily and finally true, but that it’s not necessary to take radical fringe viewpoints seriously while they are universally rejected by the expert community. I assume that he believes, as I do, that if ID is actually true, it will eventually displace the existing paradigm, but that because it has failed to do so to date, the consensus position is more likely to be true. Spitfire, That assumes that D’Souza hasn’t studied the subject. He is quite capable of hedging his bets on this topic in order to retain capital on other subjects. I do assume that. To really dissect Dembski’s arguments, I think he’d need to be able to do the math himself. Assuming he can't, he should look to an expert to break the problem down for him – the same as a patient does when he asks the doctor to recommend a course of treatment, or a homeowner does when he asks an electrician why the breakers keep tripping. It’s not rational to try to become an expert in every field, which is why people turn to outside experts. Which is hardly true, especially when one considers the defections of such luminaries as Antony Flew, James Le Fanu, and a number of the now-ID proponents who forefronted at being “most educated, most experienced, more qualified” before they switched their thinking. You named a philosopher and an MD, neither of whom would qualify as an “expert” (in my opinion) in any scientific field related to this debate. I will stipulate that there are such experts who are IDists and even young-earth creationists. I see Dembski as an expert, for example, and Behe. The “consensus” is not literally, entirely unanimous. But it is so close to unanimous, especially among biologists, that ID is on an extreme fringe, like astrologers are in the astronomy community. If ID's core arguments were valid, I'd expect it to have advanced beyond that stage. (I don't credit ID's complaints about the shadowy conspiracy of expulsive biologists.) True, you certainly have the bully pulpit on your side at the moment. But that can only last so long against compiled difficulties and predictive failures that are increasingly undermining Darwinism. Yes, I will have to come to terms with ID if it ever does sway the expert community. I don’t always trust consensus in fields I can’t fully assess personally, but I always take it seriously enough that I would find it difficult to contest ID if it became the dominant paradigm. But people have been predicting the death of “Darwinism” since long before I was born. Let’s wait together and see if ID ever proves its case.Learned Hand_{September 10, 2009
September
09
Sep
10
10
2009
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Theodosius Dobzhansky us to belong to the board of a very influencial eugenic lobby.
That's right. He was on the board of directors of the American Eugenics Society. They changed their name to the "Society for the Study of Social Biology." Apparently, Eugenie Scott is a member, according to Eugenics-Watch.Vladimir Krondan_{September 10, 2009
September
09
Sep
10
10
2009
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

Bah, I hate lack of edit capabilities. Ignore previous post.SpitfireIXA_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, Thanks for the continuing thread, you’re outnumbered at the moment and that can be exhausting in responding. You said:
But D’Souza is apparently not willing to devote that much time or effort to a question deemed settled…
That assumes that D’Souza hasn’t studied the subject. He is quite capable of hedging his bets on this topic in order to retain capital on other subjects.
…deemed settled by the essentially unanimous consent of the most educated, most experienced, most qualified experts.
Which is hardly true, especially when one considers the defections of such luminaries as Antony Flew, James Le Fanu, and a number of the now-ID proponents who forefronted at being “most educated, most experienced, more qualified” before they switched their thinking. True, you certainly have the bully pulpit on your side at the moment. But that can only last so long against compiled difficulties and predictive failures that are increasingly undermining Darwinism.SpitfireIXA_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand, Thanks for the continuing thread, you're outnumbered at the moment and that can be exhausting in responding. You said:
But D’Souza is apparently not willing to devote that much time or effort to a question deemed settled...
That assumes that D'Souza hasn't studied the subject. He is quite capable of hedging his bets on this topic in order to retain capital on other subjects.
...deemed settled by the essentially unanimous consent of the most educated, most experienced, most qualified experts. Which is hardly true, especially when one considers the defections of such luminaries as Antony Flew, James Le Fanu, and a number of the now-ID proponents who forefronted at being "most educated, most experienced, more qualified" before they switched their thinking. True, you certainly have the bully pulpit on your side at the moment. But that can only last so long against compiled difficulties and predictive failures that are increasingly undermining Darwinism.
SpitfireIXA_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

L H, I disagree that microbes to man, evolution writ large, is a "conclusion" at all. And that is the crux, because others, namely biologists, but not all of them, do. And if they cannot defend it, if their premises are weak and unsubstantiated, it is the nature of real science and real intellectual discourse to call that to attention. If this evolutionary framework is "the best that we've got right now", well, that is always open to opinion by all reasonable people. And, of course, it is always the position of science to hold a theory provisionally, because it is always a logical possibility that another assumption explains more of the phenomena with even less assumptions. Defining consensus, which isn't really a consensus, and then arguing, as Dinesh does, that there is no disagreement, and coming to a conclusion that the "consensus" must then be "true" is faulty.Clive Hayden_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

"If you want to know how biologists defend their positions, ask a biologist." I have and they have punted. We have regular biologist and evolutionary biologists here and none would even step up to the plate. On a couple occasions they did and they struck out immediately so they then knew they better than to try again. What is the big mystery that they are keeping from us. And you just admitted you understand nothing and all you are doing is accepting the words of biologists. So I suggest you excuse yourself from any further discussion and let the rest of us who understand the essence of the debate comment without having to answer your ignorance which you just admitted.jerry_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

C H, As noted, either the “experts” can or cannot defend their position. If they cannot, it doesn’t follow that those who ask them to are kooks. Let's abandon the pejorative "kooks," and rephrase your point. The community of experts has come to an essentially unanimous conclusion regarding the existence of evolution. Those who argue that the conclusion is wrong are outliers. It's not the question that makes them outliers, but the answer they reach. ID does sway folks who actually look into the matter, like Antony Flew... ID sways some folks who look into it. But not the people who have the most contact and experience with the evidence--biologists. The inability of ID to sway experts is a serious failing. jerry, If you believe that the experts are defending their position then I suggest you point to it or better yet explain it in your own words. You keep assuming that the opinions of laypersons are an adequate substitute for the work of experts. If a layperson could sum up the field of biology so easily, we wouldn't need biologists, would we? If you want to know how biologists defend their positions, ask a biologist. I'm not a biologist; as with most other technical fields, like medicine, physics, and plumbing, I look to experts to resolve highly technical disputes. ID's inability to sway even a material minority of experts in the field is fatal to its credibility. Maybe, as you say, that will change in time. But I don't see any indication that things are moving in that direction.Learned Hand_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

"As noted, it’s only the “kooks” who believe the experts cannot defend their position." If you believe that the experts are defending their position then I suggest you point to it or better yet explain it in your own words. Why has no one here defended their position except with irrelevancies. Is is not like we do not ask. I would think someone is kooky who says someone can defend their position but then cannot support that claim? Do you disagree? Is the only argument you have is to throw disparagements? You would not be any different from everyone else who came here before. When someone cannot defend their position they throw ad hominems. So your approach is nothing new.jerry_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

L H,
As noted, it’s only the “kooks” who believe the experts cannot defend their position. D’Souza’s entire point is that he’s not going to trust the “kooks” over the experts. If ID is going to sway people like D’Souza, it needs to make progress among the experts.
As noted, either the "experts" can or cannot defend their position. If they cannot, it doesn't follow that those who ask them to are kooks. I think you are right in saying that Dinesh will not be swayed unless the experts tell him to be, which is a failing of Dinesh's point of view. ID does sway folks who actually look into the matter, like Antony Flew, a well respected philosopher, contrary to those who just take their ques from "what a lot of folks are saying in a field at a given time."Clive Hayden_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

ID would do the research if it could get the funding. If some ID friendly university applied to NIH for funding they would probably be turned down. The same study done at Michigan, Princeton or Duke would probably get funded. So people then make the argument that ID does no research. There are other sources of funding. Much science is done without government assistance. But the trusted consensus cannot answer certain basic questions which anyone including D’Souza would find suspicions. Only the radical fringe thinks that, though. You're suggesting that D'Souza should adopt a radical view, rejected by the community of experts, in order to be persuaded to disregard the collective opinion of the experts. A bit circular. You go on and on with the point of painting ID as kooks when it would seem more kookish that the so called experts cannot defend their position. As noted, it's only the "kooks" who believe the experts cannot defend their position. D'Souza's entire point is that he's not going to trust the "kooks" over the experts. If ID is going to sway people like D'Souza, it needs to make progress among the experts.Learned Hand_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

"Jerry’s argument is that ID doesn’t need to do research; it only needs to wait until scientists disprove their own theories. That isn’t a bad argument at all, but it hardly undermines D’Souza’s position." ID would do the research if it could get the funding. If some ID friendly university applied to NIH for funding they would probably be turned down. The same study done at Michigan, Princeton or Duke would probably get funded. So people then make the argument that ID does no research. "D’Souza is entitled to make the rational decision to trust the consensus of experts rather than the radical fringe." But the trusted consensus cannot answer certain basic questions which anyone including D'Souza would find suspicions. Apparently you do not. He is probably not aware that they cannot answer these basic questions. So the so called "radical fringe" is more in tune with the truth than the experts or else the experts would be able to answer these questions. You go on and on with the point of painting ID as kooks when it would seem more kookish that the so called experts cannot defend their position. I would think you would find this more fascinating. But you do not seem to think so. I wonder why.jerry_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Spitfire, You assume that laypeople are capable of making a determination on the question on their own. They might be; it depends on the layperson, and the time and effort they're willing to devote to it. But D'Souza is apparently not willing to devote that much time or effort to a question deemed settled by the essentially unanimous consent of the most educated, most experienced, most qualified experts. It would be no more rational for him to dive into the question of ID than it would be for him to investigate alchemy, antigravity, perpetual motion or crystal healing, all of which are also rejected by the scientific community but championed by a fringe of dedicated advocates. Jerry's argument is that ID doesn't need to do research; it only needs to wait until scientists disprove their own theories. That isn't a bad argument at all, but it hardly undermines D'Souza's position. Regardless of what will eventually happen, it hasn't happened yet. And until either it does, or ID makes a significant showing of scientific legitimacy, D'Souza is entitled to make the rational decision to trust the consensus of experts rather than the radical fringe.Learned Hand_{September 8, 2009
September
09
Sep
8
08
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Will Vaus, ------"I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in “The Problem of Pain”. Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution?" He responds against biological evolution in the Bernard Acworth Letters, stating:
"What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
And, Lewis said the following as recorded in A.N. Wilson's biography "C.S. Lewis, A Biography" (p.210):
"It was sometime in this period when, at a dinner party where the guests included Helen Gardner, the topic was raised as to whom one would like to meet in heaven. One guest suggested Shakespeare while another suggested the apostle Paul, but Lewis said that he would like to meet Adam. He gave as his reasons: Adam was, from the first, a man in knowledge as well as in stature. He alone of all men ‘had been in Eden, in the garden of God, he had walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire’. He was endowed, says Athanasius, with ‘a vision of God so far-reaching that he could contemplate the eternity of the Divine Essence and the coming operation of His Word’. He was ‘a heavenly being’ according to St. Ambrose, who breathed the aether and was accustomed to converse with God ‘face to face’. Helen Gardner, a church-goer with a deep interest in the seventeenth century English metaphysical poets, ventured to suggest that Adam, if he existed, would be a Neanderthal ape-like figure whose conversation would hardly be interesting. Apparently, Lewis responded in a gruff voice: ‘I see we have a Darwinian in our midst.’"
Clive Hayden_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

Learned, Distinction noted. But... -- In the case of Galileo, most laypersons did not have ready access to any relevant information. -- In the case of ID/evolution, we all have more than sufficient information, provided in a format for rapid consumption, to make well-informed decisions about the matter. So there's no virtue to the ignorant layperson in this case. As stated before, Dinesh is a political animal. He has carefully hedged his future with phrases like "while the debate goes on" and "it seems." As for the ID research, jerry is effectively carrying that argument above. I'm going to bed...SpitfireIXA_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

I have made this point several times before and will make it again. There are tens of thousands of ID studies that have been done in evolutionary biology, are in the process of being done right now and will be scheduled in the future. They are just not identified as such. If they were, they might not get financing but I doubt it since both sides are interested in the results. Any study that maps a genome is an ID study. Why, because one of the basic claims of ID is that there is not enough probabilistic resources in the genomes and time for reproductive events to produce novel complex capabilities. Information to support or discredit this claim will show up in the genomes of the various species. So someone mapping the genomes of a family or an order of some collection of species will eventually be able to either support or disconfirm this prediction. So far no one has disconfirmed this prediction but we are only now entering into the era where such questions can be adequately answered. So a lot of ID type research is being done right now by those who are hostile to ID and they will eventually confirm the ID position or not and pro ID researchers will also have access to the data to validate their findings. If a person identifies himself on a ID validation project, then they will probably not get funding but it doesn't matter because enough others will and ID can then use the data. This will either validate the Edge of Evolution or disprove it. This is what Behe said should be done and would be relevant ID research. So the scientific community will either prove or disprove ID in the next 20 years. They cannot avoid it.jerry_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

I previously demonstrated that if Dinesh’s statement is true, it would strongly suggest that Galileo was wrong. One crucial distinction is that Galileo's theories eventually prevailed among the scientific community. Before they did so, a layperson who lacked the expertise to assess Galileo's claims firsthand would have been rational to have trusted the scientific community. That's largely because the community shifts with the evidence, adopting the most effective explanations. Again, if Dinesh’s conclusions are “appropriate” based on his arguments, then Galileo was wrong. That's overstating D'Souza's position. If we extended his position backwards, he might have sided with the consensus against Galileo until Galileo's theories became the dominant paradigm. It is rational for a layperson to side with the scientific consensus, if he lacks the interest or resources to educate himself to the point where he can make an educated determination on the issue. D'Souza would have been rational to have sided with the scientific community then as now, largely because the scientific community moves with the evidence. He would eventually have been on the side of Galileo, because Galileo eventually prevailed. Journals are where you go to write about something you did in your laboratory. Therefore, laboratory needed. Dr. Dembski doesn't seem to think so. But let's stipulate that ID needs laboratories. Where are they looking for money? Is the Discovery Institute funding research? Is BIOLA, or Dr. Dembski's seminary? I'd need to see evidence that ID is trying to do research before I credit an explanation that outside forces are preventing them from doing so.Learned Hand_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

O'Leary: I agree with everything you say. When I said I was an outsider I meant only when commenting on Christian theology; other people's belief/faith are in a sense precious and I think it is important to be mindful and always aim to help not hinder. Concerning UD, I am of course new and naturally an outsider, but maybe will fit in in time. I get the sense I don't fit your usual profile, but if I have understood Bill right, you want a diverse mix, to reach out to a wide constituency. Did I get that right? The post-Darwinist idea is I think a stroke of genius. Could you envisage that flourishing in a post-culture war context? I don't mean where one side destroys the other, I mean one where we all learn to trust reason again, religion is respected (though not beyond account) and neo-Darwinists give up their utterly doomed physicalist project and address with an open mind the proper place of natural selection and genetics in the development of living systems.senseorsensibility.com_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Will Vaus: Read Gary Ferngren and Ron Numbers on the Lewis-Acworth correspondence: SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1657102/posts FROM ABSTRACT: "In his voluminous publications, C.S. Lewis infrequently addressed the subject of creation and evolution, and on such occasions he usually endorsed some version of theistic evolution. In a series of previously unpublished letters to his friend Captain Bernard Acworth, written between 1944 and 1960, Lewis explained at some length his views on the question of origins.These letters reveal that during the last years of his life Lewis grew increasingly uncomfortable with the claims being made for organic evolution. Here we present for the first time in their entirety the passages of Lewis's letters to Acworth that deal with creation and evolution...."William Dembski_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Learned,
Please note that “I find X significant” is not a fallacy, no matter what X is.
I previously demonstrated that if Dinesh's statement is true, it would strongly suggest that Galileo was wrong. True, "I find X significant." cannot be fallacy. But that's irrelevant, since you only provided half of Dinesh's argument. That's like saying "I exist --" is not a fallacy. Dinesh is clearly stating that he is persuaded by evolution because a significant percentage of scientists believe it. That's a clear logical fallacy.
D’Souza has observed that ID is utterly absent in the scientific arena, and drawn the appropriate conclusions.
Again, if Dinesh's conclusions are "appropriate" based on his arguments, then Galileo was wrong.
How much does it cost to publish a journal on the web?
Journals are where you go to write about something you did in your laboratory. Therefore, laboratory needed.SpitfireIXA_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Will Vaus, Lewis says the following in his essay "The Funeral of a Great Myth" from the collection "Christian Reflections":
[The Popular Myth of Evolution] appeals to the same innocent and permanent needs in us which welcome Jack the Giant-Killer. It gives us almost everything the imagination craves - irony, heroism, vastness, unity in multiplicity, and a tragic close. It appeals to every part of me except my reason. That is why those of us who feel that the Myth is already dead for us must not make the mistake of trying to 'debunk' it in the wrong way. We must not fancy that we are securing the modern world from something grim and dry, something that starves the soul. The contrary is the truth. It is our painful duty to wake the world from an enchantment. The real universe is probably in many respects less poetical, certainly less tidy and unified, than they had supposed. Man's role in it is less than heroic. The danger that really hangs over him is perhaps entirely lacking in true tragic dignity. It is only in the last resort, and after all lesser poetries have been renounced and imagination sternly subjected to intellect, that we shall be able to offer them any compensation for what we intend to take away from them. That is why in the meantime we must treat the Myth with respect. It was all (on a certain level) nonsense: but a man would be a dull dog if he could not feel the thrill and charm of it. For my own part, though I believe it no longer, I shall always enjoy it as I enjoy other myths. I shall keep my Cave-Man where I keep Balder and Helen and the Argonauts: and there often re-visit him.
We have gone over this topic several times at UD. There are two other references that have been made that I do not have. But one was an account of Lewis saying, "So we have a Darwinist in our midst" at a dinner party. The second I remember was a letter written in response to someone who had called evolution a great lie. Lewis affirmed this description of evolution not as a result of the letter writer's arguments but more because of the way Darwinists argue. He even wrote that he "wished he were younger". I take that to mean had he held these views when he were younger, he might have directed a larger portion of his life's work against Darwinian evolution. Lewis, as you know, was greatly uncomfortable claiming to speak with authority in fields other than his own, so we don't have much reference to what he really thought about the science of the day. It seems clear though that he at least had his doubts.tragic mishap_{September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply