Theistic Evolutionists – How Do You See (Intelligent) Design?

_{nullasalus
May 15, 2011

Darwinism, Evolution, Evolutionary biology, theistic evolution

2}_{Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
Evolutionary biology
theistic evolution}

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

Recently, I made a post regarding what I thought was an encouraging moment at Biologos, where a guest writer frankly speculated about how God could work through evolution. In the comments section, some discussion was had about just how rare or common such views are among TEs.

Since I’ve already made the call for non-theists and agnostics who are ID sympathetic to speak up on here (and was very happy to see the resident ID proponents respond positively to that), I’d like to introduce a similar opportunity.

I’d like any theistic evolutionists who are reading this to speak up and share their views. In particular, I’m interested in…

* How you think design is reflected in the natural world, in as much general detail as you can offer. The key here is detail: Does God play a role in variation or even selection in your view? Is God omniscient and omnipotent?
* How you see your views in comparison to Intelligent Design. Compatible? Incompatible? Unsure?
* I want to stress, this isn’t limited to Christians. Muslims, hindus, deists, anything else – while I admit I’m very curious about Christian TEs, I’m casting the net broad here.
* I’d also like to hear your views on how evolution is popularly communicated. Do you think “science defenders” (ranging from the NCSE to the Cult of Gnu) help or hinder communicating evolutionary theory accurately?
* Finally, a particular question: Have you ever heard of Michael Dowd, and what’s your opinion of his approach on this topic? (In the interests of being open, I admit: I have a very low opinion of the man’s thoughts.)

Same rules apply as last time, really: Be respectful. Stay on topic. Let’s keep hostilities to a minimum.

Comments

Astroman, nullasalus, thanks for the welcome. I prefer to keep my beliefs about God to myself. No, you don't. In fact you walked into this thread to spout off on what is and isn't valid when thinking about God. If your beliefs about God are such that you're not willing to share them - but you want to criticize others when they share theirs - please depart from this thread. As I said right in the OP, detail is important, as is some proper conduct. You're providing no detail, and your conduct is poor. I must say I’m surprised that keeping beliefs about God private isn’t practiced by all on a site that claims to have nothing to do with religion. It's a thread expressly about God. We're a multifaceted group here - why, did you know on Biologos they routinely talk about science, when it's a religion-oriented site? And if anything is “silly” it’s automatically thinking that atheists need to be compared to religious people in the context of what I said. It’s irrelevant whether atheists are tolerant or not. A weak response, and a fumble. Yes, it is relevant when you act as if 'religious people' are particularly intolerant. P.S. Can you please tell me why some of my comments still haven’t been posted? No idea. I don't do the admin thing here much - I've heard people complain about spam filters before. More knowledgeable people, any idea? That said, I repeat. This is a particular thread devoted where I laid out some rules. If you don't want to state your beliefs, that's fine - don't, and kindly withdraw from this thread. I'm not impressed with what you've offered so far, nor with your slights against Timaeus. I didn't approve of the knocks on turell, and I don't approve of this.nullasalus_{May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

nullasalus, thanks for the welcome. I prefer to keep my beliefs about God to myself. I must say I'm surprised that keeping beliefs about God private isn't practiced by all on a site that claims to have nothing to do with religion. I am open minded about the possibility of intelligent design. However, I am not convinced by any assertions that have been made to date by the ID movement and I don't see how religious references or arguments are going to help verify intelligent design. You said: “Religious people”? As opposed to non-religious people and atheists, well known for their tolerance of people who disagree with them? This is silly." I used the term religious people because there are religious people and it is religious people who are discussing or arguing about the particulars of their beliefs on this thread. It's also apparent that some of the religious people on this thread believe that their version of their beliefs is the correct one and that other people are wrong. Some of the religious people on this thread are being insulting and condescending to others who don't agree with them. And if anything is "silly" it's automatically thinking that atheists need to be compared to religious people in the context of what I said. It's irrelevant whether atheists are tolerant or not. I'm only referring to what's going on in this thread and what often goes on between religious people elsewhere too. No matter what the topic, religion or anything else, there are always people who believe that their way is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and they can get quite rude and insulting about it at times, and that happens here all too often between people who claim to be members of the same religion, which is usually Christianity. Why is anyone discussing or arguing about religion on this site? Isn't this site supposed to be about ID and its scientific credibility? You also said: "Further, Timaeus demonstrably has a broader tolerance for other beliefs than you imply. Right in this thread, he’s shown as much." I disagree, and I think his rudeness and arrogance is obvious in his words. Like some others here, he thinks he has all the answers. He doesn't. No one does. P.S. Can you please tell me why some of my comments still haven't been posted?Astroman_{May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 100, I said: "....that are more rigorous than those of the “scientific community” and are completely separate from the “scientific community” and don’t consider or use any of the research, results, or theories provided by the “scientific community”?" From what I saw on that site the people listed there were all mostly, or completely, schooled within the "scientific community" and do their work within the "scientific community" and use and consider the research of the "scientific community" and its facilities/tools, and I don't see any indication that their work is any more rigorous than that of the rest of the "scientific community". The only thing separate (or different) is their interpretation of some of the results. I didn't see a location for the "Biologic Institute" and its research facilities. Is it an institute in name only? Joseph and others here regularly denigrate the "scientific community" but for some reason he and others apparently want very much for the "scientific community" to accept ID as a legitimate theory. In fact, he and others very much want the "scientific community" to accept ID as the only legitimate theory to explain life and its diversity, and to discard the ToE permanently. If the "scientific community" is so worthless and inept, why does any ID supporter care what they think or accept and why don't ID supporters independently build their own research and research facilities from the ground up, completely ignoring everything the "scientific community" has ever done and theorized, and develop their own, separate results from the ground up?Astroman_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT}

Gee, Astroman (97), nice to meet you, too. :-) I don't know what to say in reply, other than that I don't recognize myself in your response, and, beyond a vague sense that you are imputing to me views that I don't hold and aims that I don't have, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. T.Timaeus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

---Astroman to Timaeus: "Like many religious people you obviously believe that your version of how you see God and religion (and ID) is the only right way of seeing them. Anything other than your version must be wrong." Can we assume by your show of indignation that, unlike your reticent TE colleagues, you are going to step up and show us how God can direct an undirected process?StephenB_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Mung,
To put it in simple logic, again, loosely: we know x causes y q may also cause y, but we have absolutely no evidence that q causes y Therefore, x is a better explanation for y than q.
Let's start at the first line: we know x causes y I assume you mean x is Intelligent Design and y is objects that have certain characteristics. Ok. We're in agreement so far. q may also cause y, but we have absolutely no evidence that q causes y Here's where your logic breaks down. What is q? Is it nature? Chance? Random mutation? Natural selection? Whatever it is, it's not the absence of x, because, given the assumption that everything was designed, we already know that everything is the result of x. x is an explanation for y, but it's also an explanation for ~y, and it's an explanation for q. So, whether q is an explanation for y is irrelevant. Therefore, x is a better explanation for y than q. Nope. Again, x is an explanation for everything, even q. q is certainly not mutually exclusive of x.lastyearon_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Astroman,
Surely you can’t be serious. If you are serious, can you please point me to the ID research facilities, the ID researchers, the ID research results, and the ID theories that are more rigorous than those of the “scientific community” and are completely separate from the “scientific community” and don’t consider or use any of the research, results, or theories provided by the “scientific community”?
http://biologicinstitute.org/people/Clive Hayden_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Astroman, Welcome to the thread. Are you a TE? If not, I'd like to hear what you believe about God, and where you stand on the question of design. Edit: Like many religious people you obviously believe that your version of how you see God and religion (and ID) is the only right way of seeing them. Anything other than your version must be wrong. "Religious people"? As opposed to non-religious people and atheists, well known for their tolerance of people who disagree with them? This is silly. Further, Timaeus demonstrably has a broader tolerance for other beliefs than you imply. Right in this thread, he's shown as much. ID itself is a big tent which comprises a number of views from a number of people, and they hardly all speak with a unified voice on all topics.nullasalus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Mung, You continually fail to comprehend that there's a basic flaw in your argument: You say you are "the one arguing that it’s all design". Yet you insist that...
There is a category, we do not know this had an intelligent cause (we don’t know it was designed). Call this set C2.
Those two positions are mutually exclusive. Either you know everything was designed, or there are some things that we don't know whether they were designed.lastyearon_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @ 89, You said: "You simply cannot maintain a serious thesis about the relationship between science and religion, or more particularly between evolution and creation, without some first-rate philosophers in your camp. And unfortunately, there is not as yet a first-rate philosopher in all of TE-dom." Besides that being yet another condescending, insulting remark from you, it's also based on an arrogant assumption. With that statement you're assuming that some people ("first-rate philosopher(s)") know more about God or religion than other people (TEs). Like many religious people you obviously believe that your version of how you see God and religion (and ID) is the only right way of seeing them. Anything other than your version must be wrong. Do you have anything other than assumptions, or references to so-called "first-rate philosopher(s)" who also operate on assumptions, to support your claims? Do you have supporting evidence, other than assumptions, that shows your beliefs to be true and the beliefs of TEs to be false?Astroman_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Joseph @ 96, You said: "The same “scientific comunity” that cannot support its own claims? Unfortunately for them ID has more rgour than their postion can muster." Surely you can't be serious. If you are serious, can you please point me to the ID research facilities, the ID researchers, the ID research results, and the ID theories that are more rigorous than those of the "scientific community" and are completely separate from the "scientific community" and don't consider or use any of the research, results, or theories provided by the "scientific community"?Astroman_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Prof Gumby:
Design has not yet been demonstrated to the degree of rigour required by the scientific community.
The same "scientific comunity" that cannot support its own claims? Unfortunately for them ID has more rgour than their postion can muster.Joseph_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Prof FX Gumby @ 66: You wrote: "I’m apparently not making myself clear, so I’ll try again." No, you were clear enough. I am a seasoned veteran in all the TE and atheist arguments (interestingly, they quite often overlap to a very large degree), and I recognized your line of argument before you even completed articulating it on your first attempt. The problem is not that you have not been clear enough; the problem is that your argument is inadequate, and you have not yet seen why. Your argument runs, in essence: "ID people argue that X is too complex to have evolved by Darwinian means, therefore it must have been designed. But this implies that if X were simpler, it could have evolved by Darwinian means. So therefore there are some things that did evolve by Darwinian means alone, and others which required extra design. But this cuts God out of a large part of creation, and is demeaning to him. Therefore ID is bad theology." The first problem with this is logical. It does not follow from the fact that a certain organism or system *could have* evolved without designing input that it *did in fact* evolve without designing input. I can imagine rocks falling from a cliff and forming a simple word such as "an" or "or" by their configuration. This could have happened without the input of any designer. But if we saw such a configuration of rocks, we could not rule out the possibility that they were arranged in that way by human design. In the organic realm, what this means is that, while it might be the case that God doesn't involve himself in some parts of evolution, but lets random mutation and natural selection operate by themselves, it might also be the case that he is involved in even the smallest evolutionary changes. Nothing argued by any ID proponent requires that God be "kept out" of any part of nature. So ID *might* lead to the view of God that you are criticizing, but it *need not* do so. Second, even if ID *did* entail that God designed some things and let others happen according to chance and natural selection and so on, what would be wrong with that? Maybe God wanted a world in which some things were fixed but in which other things were left to spontaneity. TE Ken Miller, in one of his many contradictory metaphysical moods, has praised God precisely for allowing this spontaneity, for letting creation "express itself" rather than controlling it at every step, like a dictator. I don't think much of this line of argument, personally, but it shows that some TEs can look at a "free" nature and find it a theologically good thing, rather than a sign of God's absence from creation and therefore a defect in the notion of God. You'll also find that in the thought of TE George Murphy, there is sometimes a notion of the "absence of God" in creation -- God, like Christ, strips himself of power, so that nature can have some powers of its own. Thus, there are many ways of thinking about God's presence and absence in natural occurrences, and it isn't clear -- not without argument -- that God always has to be designing or controlling every stage of the evolutionary process in order to be a truly Christian God. Finally, I come to your last paragraph. You wrote: "If the position is taken that it’s all designed, then it’s necessary to give a bit more detail on exactly what is meant. Does God directly, consciously intervene in every single cell division and (apparent) mutation? Or is the process of biological change subsumed under a grand design process? If so, how is this different in operation from standard evolutionary theory?" ID is a very broad tent, and ID proponents, while agreeing on certain basics (the possibility of design detection, and the dubious truth of Darwinian explanations), disagree on all kinds of things. I can't speak for them as a group. I can tell you that very few of them -- none known to me -- would say that God consciously intervenes in every cell division. Generally they believe that God has endowed nature with powers of its own. However, they do not take it for granted that those powers include the power to evolve new life-forms of radically different structure. They regard any such claim as something that needs to be proved. So if it can be proved that a bacterium can develop antibiotic resistance, that's fine with ID people. If it can be shown that natural selection can shape finch beaks, that's fine, too. But nothing like the transition from invertebrate to verterbrate has come even close to being provided with a plausible evolutionary pathway, so many ID proponents remain skeptical that purely natural causes could have accomplished this, without the aid of interventions. On the other hand, there are ID proponents who have no problem with purely natural causes, even for major changes in body plans, but bring in ID concepts under your second suggestion. They suspect that biological change may be subsumed under some grand designed process. This is obviously the position of Michael Denton, and it may be the position of Richard Sternberg as well, and Behe has indicated that he is open to such an interpretation of evolution. I think that some of the Catholic commenters here might endorse such a position as well. I am certainly open to it, and would read any substantive arguments for this position. I am surprised that you ask your final question. It is quite obvious how such a view differs from standard evolutionary theory. Standard evolutionary theory is intentionally non-teleological, whereas the view you have suggested is teleological. Obviously ID people will support a teleological view and oppose a non-teleological one. This is why you constantly see, in Behe's writings, qualified expressions such as "Darwinian evolution" and "Darwinian mechanisms." Behe is at pains to show that it is not "evolution" he is opposing, but a particular mechanical explanation of evolution. He sees teleology going on in the process, whereas Dawkins, etc. don't. On this point, the frustrating thing for Christian ID people is that their fellow-Christians, the TEs, regularly take the anti-teleological line of the Darwinians. It's no accident that very few TEs have embraced anything like your second proposal. Only Conway Morris and Lamoureux have seriously entertained it. For some reason, most of the prominent TEs just don't like the idea that the evolutionary process might be governed by immanent tendencies, as opposed to random mutations. I suspect that they would be too embarrassed to say so, lest their atheist scientific colleagues ridicule them for being closet "creationists." T.Timaeus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, lastyearon: I agree with nullasalus. lastyearon: Please read my comments to Prof FX Gumby regarding the argument you are making. They fully answer all your objections, if you slow down long enough to digest them. And please take the time to read some of the technical and non-technical writings of Dembski, where he discusses false negatives in design detection and shows that they lead to no theological problem such as you and Prof FX Gumby think that you have identified. T.Timaeus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

dr turell @86 thank you for your thoughtful response; you wrote: ~ "I know the modern scholars think Genesis was written by several authors, certainly not Moses at Sinai." modern "scholars" also assert that life originated through "natural processes" you and I know otherwise. Prior to your realization there was a Creator, I could understand why all inquiry is limited to what you refer to as "scientific". Once you've gotten to a point where you understand there is another "realm", isn't it possible there's more to be known. The scholars I listed (including ramban == nachmanides) also have "credentials". You *volunteered* that you are a Jew. It's possible the Creator is also aware of that (ie: it's not an accident) and might now expect you to engage directly with the minds of those scholars, ie: beginning the investigation at point where the Creator placed you, intentionally. You might be surprised by what you find. Just as you did not permit the "darwinian" scholars to prevent you from examining the "other side" of the evidence, so too, perhaps it's too early to allow the "modern scholars" to which you refer to have the last word. Just my suggestion, for what it's worth. Be well.es58_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Mung, you say: "In fact, it could be argued that we do know that all designed objects do not share those characteristics." That is exactly the point. If some designed objects exhibit certain characteristics, and some designed objects don’t, then, given an object that exhibits those characteristics, how can you tell whether it was designed? Unless…you know that NO non-designed objects exhibit those characteristics. Write it out in simple logic and you’ll see what I mean.

If some designed objects exhibit certain characteristics, and some designed objects don’t, then, given an object that exhibits those characteristics, how can you tell whether it was designed?
Through what is known as inference. More specifically, inference to the best explanation. Loosely, we know x causes y, y, therefore x.
Unless…you know that NO non-designed objects exhibit those characteristics.
We don't know this. We can't know this. That's at least one major reason why "not designed" isn't a category that we can rely upon in our logic (the logic of ID). If you were to show us an object with those same characteristics we'd infer that it was designed. How would you even hope to establish that it shares all the characteristics of design but was not actually designed? To put it in simple logic, again, loosely: we know x causes y q may also cause y, but we have absolutely no evidence that q causes y Therefore, x is a better explanation for y than q.
Write it out in simple logic and you’ll see what I mean.
Let me ask you to do the same. Fair enough? Write your side out in simple logic and show it here. It could help us both better understand each other.Mung_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Prof FX Gumby: "I don’t think that these two positions [Christianity and Darwinism] are in any way contradictory." That is because you do not understand the difference between [a] Christian teleology (according to which God fashions the process of variations and selections to aim at and produce an outcome that conforms to his apriori specifications). and [b] Darwinist anti-teleology (according to which there are no apriori specifications for the process of variations and selections to aim at and produce). Thus, as a Christian Darwinist, you are embracing an irrational position that cannot be reconciled with the principles of rational thought.StephenB_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

lastyearon @78
Mung, you said: "There is known design, and there is unknown." Maybe to you there is. But not to those who believe the entire universe was designed. My argument is with those who believe that everything is designed, yet also maintain that we can detect specific instances of design.
Now I know you haven't been paying attention. I am the one arguing that it's all design. I don't think I've seen anyone but me here (in this thread) make that claim. So by not dealing with my arguments you really fall short of making your case. Basically, you just keep repeating yourself. Deal with my arguments. 1. There is no "not designed" category. 2. There is a category, we know this had an intelligent cause (we know it was designed). Call this set C1. 3. There is a category, we do not know this had an intelligent cause (we don't know it was designed). Call this set C2. ID starts with C1, with the category we know this had an intelligent cause. It then reasons, by inference, from that category, the category of the known. But where lie those objects or events then that are the object of the inference? Obviously, they must come from C2. The things which we do not know are designed. For some events and objects in C2 we can make the inference. (Our confidence is extremely high.) For other objects and events in C2 that inference is not warranted. (Our confidence is not high enough.) Now it should be obvious that taking events or objects out of C2 and placing them in C1 does not magically turn the other objects in C2 into some "non designed" category, for that category does not even exist. It merely leaves them where they were, in C2, the category of "we don't know." [Is someone getting all this down, lol? This could be some of the best stuff I've written on ID.]Mung_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Prof Gumby re 65: I don't know of any Christian ID proponent who would differ from your statement on creation. Further, many ID proponents, past associates and allies accept that evolution has occurred (Behe, Denton, Sternberg, and a host of rank and file IDers, many of whom post columns and commments here), and do not find any theological problem in the notion that God might have created through an evolutionary process rather than directly. However, an important difference between ID and TE people (and I'm generalizing here, which means that you among others may not be covered in my remark) seems to be that ID people are on the whole much more concerned than TEs to obtain a clear understanding of the relationship between divine action and the evolutionary process. Most of them don't find it satisfactory to say: "I believe as a scientist that evolution from molecules to man occurred entirely without divine intervention, but faith tells me that God was involved somehow, so I'll assert that he is the cause of the process while doing my science as if he wasn't, and then I'll get along with the devout Christians in my church and also with the devout atheists at my university lab, and then all will be well." To an IDer, that is NOMA-like compartmentalization, whereby one believes in non-teleology in evolution because "science" says so, and one believes in teleology in evolution because "faith" says so, and one doesn't feel any responsibility to explain how the two truths can be held together, in reference to exactly the same natural process. You can scour the hundreds of columns at Biologos, and you won't find even the beginning of a competent theoretical exposition of the problem, just the blanket assertion that God controls all things, even randomness, so that all is well with evolution and there is no theological problem that Christians need to worry their little heads about. This sort of papering-over of a major theoretical difficulty cannot be sustained, which is why Biologos has come under theoretical attack from several camps (YEC, ID, and New Atheist), each of which offers more coherent philosophical thought about divine action (or non-action) in nature than anything that TE has yet achieved. You simply cannot maintain a serious thesis about the relationship between science and religion, or more particularly between evolution and creation, without some first-rate philosophers in your camp. And unfortunately, there is not as yet a first-rate philosopher in all of TE-dom. T.Timaeus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

# 55 es 58: I understand that you are a very religious person, and very proud of your religiosity. In a way I envy you that, as I have had to struggle with my own understanding of what I wanted to believe. I did not like being agnostic. I don't like wishy-washyness. As a practicing physician I couldn't practice my profession that way. However as I have stated elsewhere in the discussion and in direct response to you, we each start at different origins. As children our parents give us a religion to begin with. My Reform parents presented a cultural Judaism, not a very religious one. I imagine you came from a strongly religious family or came to find a very strong attachment. I started at zero, and I have used science alone to make my own judgments. I have not used the Bible (OT) at all. I know the modern scholars think Genesis was written by several authors, certainly not Moses at Sinai. The authors are humans. I don't accept that they had divine insights or direct contact with God's thoughts. My concept is the Bible is man-made history, at least in the OT. What is fascinating to me is Nahmanides (Ramban) gave an amazingly accurate description of the Big Bang from the early chapters of Genesis. (See Schroeder, "Genesis and the Big Bang") Which brings me finally to your question of me, which is why do I think I know about God as well as anyone else might. We know about God through His works. (The Quranic point of view; see Karen Armstrong, "A History of God") We do not know God directly, so any other person has as good a theory as I do. My theory is no better nor worse than anyone elses' theory. The commentaries are written by men who started with faith. I arrived at faith by proving to myself through science there had to be a greater power behind the origin of the universe, the very special Earth we have, and our specified arrival through evolution. The odds against chance are insurmountable. You have a perfect right to your way of worshipping. I have mine.turell_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

lastyearon, and others who say everything is designed: yes and no, there are levels; if you spill something on the floor, the arrangement is random; at different level, the components that make up all the spill may be the product of designes58_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

#57 Chris Doyle: Thanks you for our very kind comments. I am convinced that Neo-Darwinism cannot survive the current studies of the 'junk' areas of DNA, the large contribution of epigenetics to rapid inheritable adaptations to suddenly appearing dangers, and so forth. Darwin worked brilliantly from his very limited knowledge, but from our vantage point today, it is easy to see his errors.turell_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

#56 CY: Thank you for your discussion. Like Rupert Sheldrake I am an evidentialist. I must find proof in one way or another. Sheldrake like the Bayesian Theorum, but he accepts the Bible as innerrant, and starts there and I don't. I must find science. In my Chapter Seven I do use both design of the universe with its very specific parameters and biologic design as one reason for God. Also First Cause, the huge presumptions in Darwinism which cannot have occurred by a chance mechanism, and the arrival of true consciousness in H. sapiens. Consciousnesds is how we are made in the image of God, as I consider Him a Universal consciousness.turell_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

lastyearon, All of the methods that would allow us to identify ArtistX’s work rely on knowing about ArtistX, and what distinguishes him from other artists. Sure. But the point was that there could be A) a diversity of methods of identification available, B) a single method may only reliably identify some, rather than all, the instances of ArtistX's work, and C) that's still compatible with every piece in the room being done by ArtistX. And so it can only identify generic ‘design’ by distinguishing it from ‘non-design’. No, ID makes the argument that there are certain hallmarks of 'design' that we can be reasonably sure of and which lend themselves to use in evaluating whether X or Y was designed. It does not require certainty that everything that does not meet the standard is therefore 'not designed', any more than in my example a person who knows that a signature indicates that ArtistX was responsible for a piece of art must therefore be committed to the idea - on the information provided alone - that any piece without a signature was not done by ArtistX.nullasalus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, you said
In the example I gave, every piece of art in the room could have conceivably be made by ArtistX. But a given method may only reasonably identify 25% of the art as being made by ArtistX. But if every piece of art in the room was made by ArtistX, that would not mean that the signature method was therefore invalid.
All of the methods that would allow us to identify ArtistX's work rely on knowing about ArtistX, and what distinguishes him from other artists. His style of brush stroke, his signature, his subjects, when and where he lived, what style influenced him, etc. ID theory has no methods that are like this, because it can't identify anything about the designer. And so it can only identify generic 'design' by distinguishing it from 'non-design'.lastyearon_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Mung, you say:
In fact, it could be argued that we do know that all designed objects do not share those characteristics.
That is exactly the point. If some designed objects exhibit certain characteristics, and some designed objects don't, then, given an object that exhibits those characteristics, how can you tell whether it was designed? Unless...you know that NO non-designed objects exhibit those characteristics. Write it out in simple logic and you'll see what I mean.lastyearon_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Prof Gumby re 65: You wrote: "Your comments in 47 above on the assumptions of TEs were directed in a comment to me and weren’t qualified in any way." Yes, the comment was to you, but it wasn't about you; I was trying to inform you of what many people from your camp have asserted, since you seemed unaware of many of the arguments that have come out of it. As for "weren't qualified in any way," I think you read my comments too quickly. For example, I wrote: " ... many of them *assume*, also as a matter of faith, that this Christian God would never make his design detectable by human reason; and they further *assume*, as an irrefutable result of science, not only the fact of evolution, but that evolution proceeded primarily via Darwinian mechanisms (an assumption which Lynn Margulis and many other cutting-edge evolutionary theorists now seriously question); and then they baldly assert ..." Now notice that this passage opens with the qualifying adjective "many." Notice also that in the continuation, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a reader to apply the word "many" to qualify the occurrences of "they" which follow; it is not required in English prose to continue repeating an element within the same sentence, if the writer may reasonably be supposed to be talking about the same thing throughout the sentence. Admittedly, I could have nailed it down more precisely by repeating "many" in every section of the sentence, but I think that now that I have explained my intentions, you will see that the qualification was there explicitly at the beginning, and implicitly throughout. Note the further qualification in the next part: " ... without proof or explanation, that even though Darwinian mechanisms are inherently unguided, and even though God never intervenes in the creative process (another *assumption* made by the majority of leading TEs), that nonetheless God can guarantee that these unguided mechanisms will produce the results he wants." Did you catch it? The assumption is made by "the majority" (not "all") of "leading TEs" (not rank-and-file TEs). A double qualification! How much more can you ask for? Generally speaking, you will find that I qualify things much more frequently, and much more carefully, than TE writers do. Read the sweeping generalizations about "ID" made on Biologos on a daily basis. Then, if you would, please post some critical comments there about the lack of qualifications. I'd appreciate that, and so would ID proponents. T.Timaeus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Mung, you said:
There is known design, and there is unknown.
Maybe to you there is. But not to those who believe the entire universe was designed. My argument is with those who believe that everything is designed, yet also maintain that we can detect specific instances of design.lastyearon_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

There are no longer any specific characteristics that distinguish design from non-design.
There never were any specific characteristics that distinguish design from non-design. Do you have a way to tell that something wasn't designed? I'd be glad to hear it. You're thinking of "Non-Intelligent Non-Design Theory." That's not us. We are "Intelligent Design Theory." Do you think Darwin's theory tells us which features of living organisms were not designed? Or is it a theory of how you can get design without a designer?Mung_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Prof FX Gumby (64): Thank you for your replies. I understood your example of the advanced alien crystal the first time you gave it. I already explained why it was not to the point. Yes, it is possible that at any given stage of scientific knowledge, methods of design detection might fail to detect design where it actually is. That is what Dembksi calls a "false negative." In his books and in many other places (including on this site, in response to the criticism of Francis Beckwith) he has acknowledge that ID might produce false negatives. However, that does not undermine ID as a project, unless you think that false negatives automatically nullify the false positives in any scientific testing method. Would you throw out all *positive* pregnancy test results on the grounds that on very rare occasions such tests show false *negatives*? Would you throw out all positive DNA identifications used in forensic science on the grounds that occasionally DNA testing produces a false negative? What you have to show us here is that ID could never even in principle produce a valid positive result; or at the very least, you have to refute those claims for positive results (e.g., the bacterial flagellum, treated mathematically in *No Free Lunch*) which ID has already produced. You say that inferring design in the case of, say, the flagellar transport system, is arguing from incredulity. Well, I say that inferring that such a system could have arisen through Darwinian means is an argument from credulity. Why should anyone believe it? There is no empirical documentation for it. Why should the onus be put on the Darwin-doubters? Why shouldn't Darwinists have to provide the details, at least hypothetical, plausible details, before their account is accepted? Interestingly enough, the criticism of Behe's *Edge of Evolution* book has focused mainly on his remarks about "two mutations" and a figure he got from the mainstream scientific literature; I haven't yet seen a response, in any of the literature critical of that book, which explains how the flagellar transport system arose via Darwinian means. You can be sure that if there was a Darwinian explanation for that system, the anti-ID gang would have trotted it out. Nearly four years later, the embarrassed silence of the Darwinians still lingers in the air. But of course, when you are bluffing about your ability to explain something (as Darwinians almost always are), what can you do but remain silent when your bluff is called? T.Timaeus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply