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

By saying that everything was designed, you completely nullify that entire line of reasoning. There are no longer any specific characteristics that distinguish design from non-design. Everything was designed!
This argument has repeatedly been refuted and those posts have yet to be responded to. Two examples are here and here. Also, your argument isn't even logical. I feel like I'll be wasting my breath, but here it is.
What’s the only method to infer that an object was designed when we don’t know anything about the designer? It’s by comparing that object to known examples of design.
Step 1. Compare to known design.
ID theorists repeat over and over that we infer a certain biological system was designed because we know that designed objects exhibit certain characteristics, and we find those characteristics in the biological system.
We know that some designed objects exhibit certain characteristics. We do not know whether all designed objects share those characteristics. In fact, it could be argued that we do know that all designed objects do not share those characteristics.
By saying that everything was designed, you completely nullify that entire line of reasoning.
This is simply not true, for that line of reasoning isn't even present. To wit:
There are no longer any specific characteristics that distinguish design from non-design.
There is no non-design in the above argument. There is known design, and there is unknown. We never compare things to things we know are not designed in order to make the design argument. You and the prof are just both wrong because you fail to grasp this distinction, or even admit that it exists. Unknown does not equal NOT DESIGN.Mung_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

lastyearon, By saying that everything was designed, you completely nullify that entire line of reasoning. Not really, since you can have multiple varieties of design - just as you can have multiple ways to determine (with varying degrees of confidence) just which work of art was or wasn't done by ArtistX. You can be unaware of or even question every way but the signature method - you'll still have the signature method. It's a question of what context you're working in, what assumptions you're granting - if only for the sake of argument - and so on. 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. Surely you see this?nullasalus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Nullasalus, you said:
It’s admitted that, in principle, everything in the universe can be designed. What’s being focused on is one particular way to infer design.
You're missing the point of Prof. Gumby's argument. What's the only method to infer that an object was designed when we don't know anything about the designer? It's by comparing that object to known examples of design. ID theorists repeat over and over that we infer a certain biological system was designed because we know that designed objects exhibit certain characteristics, and we find those characteristics in the biological system. By saying that everything was designed, you completely nullify that entire line of reasoning. There are no longer any specific characteristics that distinguish design from non-design. Everything was designed!lastyearon_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Prof. FX Gumby, My position is simple to outline. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I accept the empirical evidence that evolution has in fact occurred in the past and continues to occur at present. I consider that current evolutionary theory explains well our observations about biology. Of course, there is still plenty of room for reevaluating and revising evolutionary theory in the light of new observations and new theoretical developments. I don’t think that these two positions are in any way contradictory. I don’t believe that God has directly intervened in the evolutionary process; however, there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove this. If evidence of interventions were to arise, I’d consider it carefully. Then what is God's relation to evolution? You say you don't believe God intervenes or intervened directly in evolution, but you say God is the Creator of all on your view. Then did God foresee and preordain all that occurs in nature? Did God foresee the variation as well as the selection? As I said in the OP, the key here is detail. Yet there have been observed instances of evolution in action (finch beaks, speciation by polyploidy, etc.). This would appear to suggest that these (less complex) things were not designed. What it would suggest is that those observed instances of evolution do not qualify as design given a particular, arguably reasonable standard of investigation. Let me give you a practical example. Let's say I have a room of artworks. I'm trying to find which pieces were made by ArtistX. How can I do that? Well, there's one obvious way: Take each piece and look for an ArtistX signature. Let's say I do this, and I find that 25% of the pieces have a ArtistX signature. The rest have no signature. Is it therefore the case that only 25% of the pieces in the room are by ArtistX? Well, no. ArtistX, based on the information I gave here, could have made every piece in the room - an artist doesn't have to sign every piece he makes. However, I employed one reasonable standard of identification. Maybe there are other standards (particular styles of design, traces of documented ownership, etc) that I could use. Maybe I'm unaware of those standards, and maybe not. I think ID proponents are employing a similar approach. It's admitted that, in principle, everything in the universe can be designed. What's being focused on is one particular way to infer design. If said way doesn't detect design in this or that artifact, it does not add up to a claim that the artifact was not designed.nullasalus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

lastyear, Perhaps the most significant reason not to change to your revised definition of ID is that what you state as a definition is incorrect. ID Theory does not say that everything in the Universe was designed, nor does it claim a method of detecting design in all things in the Universe. The DNA argument doesn't get you there, the IC argument doesn't get you there, the Semiotic argument doesn't get you there, the FSCI arguement doesn't get you there, the physiological argument doesn't get you there. Not even the fine tuning argument gets you there. There is a theological argument that might get you there, but ID is not a theological arguement.Upright BiPed_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

The first sentence of the definition of Intelligent Design according to this blog:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
Certain features? I thought everything in the universe was designed. Perhaps you should change the definition to this:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that every feature of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. But some features are more designed than others.
lastyearon_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, you said:
it is easily imaginable that a limited role for the chance outcomes of Darwinian processes could be built into a bigger design plan
So you accept the notion that God could have designed what we consider to be random. Then why is it so dificult to imagine that God planned evolution. ID, by definition must limit God, by implying that God could not have designed a system that we observe as random.lastyearon_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

"The typical ID argument runs along the lines of “organelle X or system Y is complex, therefore it must have been designed”... " It is incomprehensible that someone wishing to be taken seriously could come to UD and use this old line. It carries the same intellectual horsepower as the Darwin doubter who says that "if we evolved, then why are there still apes".Upright BiPed_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Thank-you for your response, PFX Gumby, in which you expand design detection beyond reference to mere human design. You now encompass reference to design by “biological organism”. I wonder, if you had never seen a termite, but came across an old, preserved termite nest – still exhibiting vast amounts of dFSCI – would you ever consider that what you were seeing was a product of purely natural processes? And what about Stonehenge? Or even Crop Circles? We strongly suspect that these are the result of human activity but we don’t really know that for sure. When you behold any of these things, you don’t think to yourself, “Ah, this is the result of a biological organism”. You just think, “No way did they make themselves as a result of purely natural processes.” Yes, opening the door for “biological organisms” in design detection means that you are opening the door to detecting design without knowing anything significant about the designer. And, assuming you are a Christian, then you must believe that Jesus – the Son of God, part of the all-important Trinity that created everything – was a “biological organism” at some point… A final double question if I may: as a theistic evolutionist I presume you do not believe that the arrival of mankind was an unplanned, purely accidental event. If the Creator was not surprised by our arrival, were the random mutations not random after all? How can this be reconciled with neo-darwinism?Chris Doyle_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Timaeus @62 (and Mung @41),
I notice that you have not responded to my refutation of your “design implies that some things must be non-designed” argument. Until I hear back from you, I will take it that my refutation has convinced you.
No, I simply hadn't gotten around to it. I'm apparently not making myself clear, so I'll try again. The typical ID argument runs along the lines of "organelle X or system Y is complex, therefore it must have been designed". (Yes I know I'm simplifying, but I'm trying to be brief as well.) Yet there have been observed instances of evolution in action (finch beaks, speciation by polyploidy, etc.). This would appear to suggest that these (less complex) things were not designed. If this position is taken, that some things were designed but others weren't, then in my opinion, this limits God to the role of a tinkerer who pulls out his cosmic AutoCAD to produce blueprints for flagella, Golgi apparatuses, and so forth. 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?Prof. FX Gumby_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Timaeus @63, Your comments in 47 above on the assumptions of TEs were directed in a comment to me and weren't qualified in any way. So I thought to disabuse you of the idea that all TEs share your list of assumptions. You think you know the range of leading opinion quite well, but if you ascribe the facile assumptions to all TEs, as you did in comment 47, then I suggest you don't know their opinions as well as you think. However, I'm not interested in defending anyone else's TE position. My position is simple to outline. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I accept the empirical evidence that evolution has in fact occurred in the past and continues to occur at present. I consider that current evolutionary theory explains well our observations about biology. Of course, there is still plenty of room for reevaluating and revising evolutionary theory in the light of new observations and new theoretical developments. I don't think that these two positions are in any way contradictory. I don't believe that God has directly intervened in the evolutionary process; however, there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove this. If evidence of interventions were to arise, I'd consider it carefully.Prof. FX Gumby_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that ID proponents can establish design for complex objects and systems, but not apparently simple ones. Here, you're making reference to what we as humans understand as complex and simple. If we were to come across an artifact of a very, very advanced alien civilisation that appeared very simple to us, such as a synthetic crystal designed to store data or act as a power source in some way we were completely unfamiliar with, would we know that it had been designed? Without further knowledge of the designer's technology, life history, society, etc.? Unlikely. However, as we're not likely to come across any such evidence to test in the next while You then liken complex organic objects and systems to toasters and consider that it's more likely they were designed than evolved naturally. I didn't refer to this in your earlier post, as this is simply arguing from analogy and from incredulity. You note that "ID proponents believe that at least in some cases design can be demonstrated". Well, this is very much the point, isn't it? Or rather the lack of such belief among the wider scientific community. Design has not yet been demonstrated to the degree of rigour required by the scientific community. As I said above [edited for Chris Doyle's benefit]: I’m not aware of any analytical tool that can successfully detect design without reference to what we know about human, [termite, beaver or other biological organism] design.Prof. FX Gumby_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Timaeus @ 49 (or whatever number it ends up being): You said : "What you fail to see is that we do not detect design by comparing some objects with others." Actually, you do compare objects with others. From the moment you're born you're exposed to designed objects and you are taught to recognize, understand, and use designed objects. You may even be taught to design and build objects. Even if no designed objects are in your possession or presence when you're examining an object to see if it shows evidence of design, you're still referencing a lifetime of exposure to designed objects to make comparisons to the object you're currently examining. Your mind is filled with images and at least some understanding of designed objects. You cannot help but reference and apply those images and understanding when you're examining an object and trying to determine if it shows signs of design. You are making comparisons, whether you realize it or not. You're always referencing other objects; the designed objects that you've been exposed to all your life and have stored as references in your brain.Astroman_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Prof FX Gumby: I realize that I must not make you responsible for all TEs. At the same time, it is hardly an adequate refutation of my characterization of many TEs that you do not share the views of those TEs. I have been offering a characterization of the views of the leading TEs. I have admitted that many rank and file TEs -- thousands of people would would describe themselves as TEs but are relatively unknown and uncelebrated, in comparison with Collins, Miller, Murphy, Giberson, Falk, Isaac, etc. -- may not share all the views of their movement's most vocal representatives. That does not invalidate my characterization of the people of whom I am speaking. Having read thousands of pages of TE books, articles, blogs and e-mails now, and having debated with TEs major and minor, I think I know the range of leading TE opinion quite well. I don't know whether or not you can say the same. My point about the TE assumption of the Christian God is not that it is wrong for Christians to assume that the Christian God exists. My point is that ID reaches God -- and merely a generic God at that -- only at the *end* of its investigation into nature, whereas TE assumes God -- and specifically a Christian God (usually a post-Enlightenment Protestant God) -- as the *starting-point* of its reflections upon nature. Many TEs have explicitly stated that they look for design in nature only because they already believe in God through faith, and have stressed that this is different from ID people who believe that one can conclude God from nature without the help of the eyes of faith. You miss my point about the assumption of Darwinian mechanisms. I am not denying that for some individuals the acceptance of Darwinian mechanisms is something that proceeds from long study of biological detail. But the vast majority of people living on this planet who claim to believe in Darwinian evolution could not talk for more than five minutes about the specific mechanisms, and in those five minutes would give only standard examples -- finch beaks, giraffe necks, antibiotic resistance. If you actually press most people, even most scientists, for a detailed explanation of Darwinian pathways, you quickly find that their "knowledge" of whale evolution, bird evolution, human evolution, etc., is ultimately faith that some biologist at some university somewhere has shown how bats' wings evolved, how the lung evolved, etc. It is just assumed, without proof, that Darwinian mechanisms are capable of creating virtually anything. This assumption has been challenged by some biologists who are specialists in evolutionary biology, e.g., Lynn Margulis, and a number of leading theorists from the recent conference at Altenberg (none of whom, by the way, are sympathetic with ID). If you are unaware of such challenges to Darwinism from within evolutionary biology, this raises doubts about your claim to learning in the field. As for the rest, I repeat my original point: I'm not really concerned with whether or not a pseudonymous poster on UD endorses all the contradictions and muddles of TE leaders. If you don't make all the foolish claims that some TEs do, more power to you. That will not stop me from repeatedly challenging those claims whenever the natural occasion arises. TE, in the form I am criticizing, is seriously flawed in its account both of the nature of science and of Christian theology, yet has the gall to lecture ID people in both those areas. I don't intend to take such intellectual arrogance lying down. If you wish to state your own version of TE, I'm quite willing to listen to what you have to say. But if you get caught defending one side in a shooting war that you didn't begin, don't complain if you get hit with some fire from the ID side. If I may suggest a constructive approach: instead of merely attacking ID (with arguments which are frequently used by the TEs I'm speaking of), why don't you state positively what you affirm as a TE, about God, nature, science, etc.? About evolution and its mechanisms? About how divine action and natural causes are connected? Then I could assess better where you stand vis-a-vis the leading TEs that are my main concern. T.Timaeus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Prof FX Gumby: Having been "played" by internet TEs and atheists dozens of times over the past few years, I tend to be on the suspicious side about their motivations. However, I don't know you well enough (unless you are someone else I've debated with, using a different pseudonym than previously) to impute mischievous motives to you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me concentrate on the substance. You have repeated, without proof, your claim that we know a toaster is designed on the basis of our prior knowledge of the designer. I disagree with that entirely, and have given my reasons. You have not responded to my reasons, but have merely repeated your assertion. Assuming that we discovered a toaster on some other planet, with a plug capable of insertion into one of our own power sources or some outlet that we could manufacture, we could observe that the toaster has parts which perform a certain function -- heating an element and, after a certain period of time, making the lever spring up. Even if we had never heard of toast and could not imagine what the device was for, its designed character could be inferred, from any number of features, including the refined metals (which are not found in nature), the use of the bimetallic bar (in older toasters, anyway), and the coordinated action of numerous well-formed parts (which are neither found in nature, nor, were they found in nature, would they arrange themselves for such coordinated action, not even if a million tornadoes blew through a million junkyards to stir up the parts). The inference to design would be as certain as anything short of Euclidean geometry or formal logic. If you cannot see that this is the case, if you think we would need to know something about the physiology, origin, motives or intentions of the race which built the toaster, you will have to specify exactly what you think it is that we would need to know about the designer before the design inference was legitimate. You have not done so, or even tried to do so. Until you do, I consider my position as demonstrated. As for crystals, no ID proponent claims that crystals can be shown to have been constructed by an intelligent agent. They form due to the blind action of the natural laws of physics and chemistry. That is well explained by Dembski. Of course, if one assumes that God constructed natural laws in the expectation that they would lead to crystal formation, then in an indirect sense crystals would be designed. But in the case of crystals, the methods of ID cannot establish that anything beyond natural laws are involved, whereas, in the case of a toaster, they can. The interesting question of course, concerns the complex systems found in the organic world, which are, prima facie, much more like toasters than like crystals. ID proponents believe that at least in some cases design can be demonstrated. I notice that you have not responded to my refutation of your "design implies that some things must be non-designed" argument. Until I hear back from you, I will take it that my refutation has convinced you. Let me know when you have read Behe's description of the flagellar transport system, and tell me whether or not you think that system was designed, and if not, why not. T.Timaeus_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Prof. FX Gumby:
I’m not aware of any analytical tool that can successfully detect design without reference to what we know about human design.
Yes, design detection requires knowledge- the knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And yes our knowledge of human activities is part of that.
You are correct that if (non-human) design were to be established for a single biological feature, then it would be a significant challenge to evolutionary theory.
And that exact thing has been done. Go figure... (living organisms them selves; ribosomes, ATP synthase, flagella, cilium, etc., etc., etc.)Joseph_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

PFX Gumby says: "I’m not aware of any analytical tool that can successfully detect design without reference to what we know about human design." Does he agree that we can detect design in termite nests? Human design is not a feature of those and we can eliminate any prospect that a termite nest could make itself by accident. What about Stonehenge? Humans probably made it... but we cannot be certain. Once again, we can detect design in that structure simply because we can be absolutely certain that it did not build itself.Chris Doyle_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, Assumption! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Your characterisation of the assumptions that TEs make is itself one long assumption! Or perhaps better to say a groundless assertion. I can't speak for other TEs - and perhaps this is part of your frustration, that there are many TE viewpoints - but let me respond myself to your accusations.
TEs *assume* the existence of a Christian God (I know of no Muslim, Jewish or Hindu TEs), as a matter of faith,
Yes, I believe in God as a matter of faith and I am a Christian. I wouldn't characterise my faith (or anyone else's for that matter) as "taking for granted."
and many of them *assume*, also as a matter of faith, that this Christian God would never make his design detectable by human reason;
I don't assume that. I simply observe that we have not empirically detected his design thus far.
and they further *assume*, as an irrefutable result of science, not only the fact of evolution, but that evolution proceeded primarily via Darwinian mechanisms...
My acceptance of both the facts and the theory of evolution is the product of years of learning. Not an assumption.
and then they baldly assert, 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)
I don't assume that. I simply observe that we have not detected empirically any interventions thus far.
that nonetheless God can guarantee that these unguided mechanisms will produce the results he wants.
I have no doubt of this. God is, well, God. However, I'm not bold enough to presume to know what his desired results are.Prof. FX Gumby_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, Rather than question your good faith in this discussion as you have done mine, I'll simply point out that some of the arguments that you believe have been adequately addressed by the pro-ID side have in fact not been addressed to the satisfaction of most. You've missed my point about crystals and toasters. We know a toaster is designed because we know something about the designer. Whether or not this troubles ID theory, this is a significant problem in actual design detection. I'm not aware of any analytical tool that can successfully detect design without reference to what we know about human design. You are correct that if (non-human) design were to be established for a single biological feature, then it would be a significant challenge to evolutionary theory. I eagerly anticipate such a discovery.Prof. FX Gumby_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

Hello again Mr Turrell, Thank-you for your kind response, and the very personal insights you had to offer. When I think of theistic evolutionists, I think of people like Kenneth Miller. I don’t think you have much in common with him. Nonetheless you are a firm theistic evolutionist which is fair enough. Given the strong, virtually inseparable connotations that neo-darwinism has to evolution for me I have neglected works on directed evolution. Also, as soon as you introduce concepts of Intelligent Design to the subject that’s the end of Darwin, Dawkins, Miller and co. Maybe I should read your book! ES58’s first response to you was out of order and I’m glad he apologised for it. The only dividing line that truly matters is that between Chance or Design. I’m glad you and I are on the same side. The sooner people like ES58 appreciate this fact, the stronger the ID movement will become.Chris Doyle_{May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Mr. turell @ 29, I apologize for responding so late, and I thank you for your response to my question. While I agree with perhaps 90% of what you stated, and I think your position is quite admirable, the 10% that I disagree with (and this is perhaps off topic, but I wanted to address it nonetheless) is: I sense your belief is that everything we hold as true must be empirically verifiable. If this is your position, I disagree. In fact the very notion that truth must be empirically verifiable is itself not empirically verifiable. I believe that there are certain truths, for example, which are self-evident, and not open to verification, but must nonetheless be true in order for us to come to any meaningful conclusions about any other allegedly truthful proposition. Many of us consider these as first principles of reason. I think therefore, that it IS possible to come to terms with who God is beyond merely acknowledging his existence and without any empirical considerations; just sound reason based on first principles. In fact, I would also assert that scripture itself can be justifiably held true or not true, without resort to empirical verification, but following first principles of reason. I'm going to assume that you are quite aware of these principles and how they are applied. In fact, it would come as a surprise to me if you did not apply these principles in coming to your conclusion that God does in fact exist. I simply believe that one can go further than just that; therefore it is quite possible in my thinking that perhaps all religions are false, or that one might be true, and we could know through reason which one that might be, if any. This might appear to be an arrogant position, but it would be no more arrogant than asserting that no one could know these things. I personally do not believe either position is necessarily arrogant, but both must appeal to first principles of reason for their justification. Do you not agree? But as you suggested, and I agree with you; we are quite free to believe as we feel justified. One last question if you don't mind: In your book, do you consider any of the many arguments for God's existence other than design arguments?CannuckianYankee_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Truell, Yes the sarcasm was very sophomoric. I apologize for that. But, do you really think it's not presumptuous to *assert* that no one can have a better understanding of G-d than you? Why can't you entertain such a thought?es58_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Divine Action in the Framework of Scientific Thinking: From Quantum Theory to Divine Action Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action Divine Action and Natural Selection: Science, Faith and Evolution Divine Action - amazon
Considering the relationship between the natural sciences and the concept of God acting in the world, this study examines the Biblical motivations for asserting a continuing belief in divine action. It is a radical critique of current attempts to reconcile special divine action with quantum theory, chaos theory and quantum chaos. The book concludes that a satisfactory account of how God might act in a manner that agrees with modern science is still lacking. Divine Action and Modern Science
Mung_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

T, And I think that’s what nullasalus is up to in this column — getting beyond the culture-war vendettas which have generated so much bad behavior from both sides, and getting a genuine dialogue going, to explore possible common ground. I support this intention unreservedly. There is that part of it. There's also a healthy dose of simple curiosity - wanting to see just where some self-described TEs are coming from, how they approach these questions and what they really think. I admit, some of what I wanted here was meant to be in part provocative - I want a TE to tell me just what he thinks God does in the world, or lacking that, how God could be at work in the world in his view. I don't like the tendency of some TEs to say "God and evolution are compatible", and then refuse to expand on it - knowing that either the compatibility will gain the ire of some people (if for non-scientific reasons), or that their 'compatibility' is hardly that (approaching something like a bizarre Ruse-ish concoction.) Anyway, your earlier response deserves some replies! Sorry for taking so long to get to that. Wouldn’t you agree that Bishop is in a minority position among the TEs on this one? And that, until his view is more widely acknowledged by the TE leaders as a legitimate TE position, ID people are not likely to pay much attention to it, but to concentrate on the more prominent TE writers, who seem to endorse a dogmatic naturalism regarding origins? Well, I said right in my post that I thought Bishop's attitude was refreshing and a good sign for someone at Biologos - so I agree absolutely that at least at Biologos, yeah, his view is something of an outlier. And since I regard Biologos as in-essence TE Central, and while some TEs have more fleshed out and respectable views (Barr is one, Ted Davis is another, Polkinghorne yet another), they are currently being swamped out by the murkier variety of TE. So, while I think that ID is very much science-informed, you won’t find me pushing the “ID is science” claim here. ID is certainly compatible with the best avaialable science, and contradicts none of it; and that to me makes it legitimate as an interpretation of nature. Well, I appreciate your approach, and I'm hoping that the Design Question, as distinct from Intelligent Design, can serve as a way to get TEs and IDs talking more, and broadly too. Of course, I also think the Design Question - I have to flesh this out in an upcoming post - is also a way to get ID proponents talking with agnostics and others as well, which I take was a hope many theists had with ID. As you said, communicating to people who may think "Well, science shows there's no design" uncritically. As for “if it evolved, then it wasn’t designed,” that would certainly be true for Darwinian evolution (and Darwin intended it so, and so did all the builders of the modern synthesis, and so did Gould, etc.), but I think it’s false for evolution overall. I agree. And I also think that's arguably the touchiest area between TEs and ID proponents, since the usual TE line is "Denounce YEC and embrace evolution, and maybe we'll have something to talk about." Which I think is an inane demand. But at the same time, one doesn't have to denounce anything to support the idea that yes, one can believe in evolution and design. Maybe not Darwin's evolution, but evolution all the same. And my view of "Darwin's evolution" is that what makes it "Darwin's" is a philosophical, not a scientific, core - the positive declaration that variation and selection are unguided, period. Which is another reason why Bishop's position intrigues me. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Considering some of the comments these threads have gotten, I consider them to be a success. Maybe more agnostics and non-theists will appreciate a design perspective or even an ID approach. And maybe there's more common ground to be had between many TEs and ID proponents than most usually think.nullasalus_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

ES 58: Your sarcasm is very sophomoric. I don't hide behind pseudonyms, and give an honest appraisal of what my thinking has been and who I am. You take on faith that the Torah is entirely true and all of the commentaries are valid. I have no Yeshivabrucher background. I started from a position of a Jewish childhood and then agnosticism. I needed logic, not religious faith in writings taken initially on faith. I had to build faith from what science offered. I have met Gerald Schroeder and read all of his books. I've read Lee Spetner's Not by Chance. Both are Orthodox Jews, with some of the religious background you think I should have. Other books in the area you are discussing include Rabbi David Nelson's, "Judaism, Physics, and God". Also the new interpretation of Genesis: "In the beginning of", by Judah Landa. From my point of view, your argument with me starts from a losing position. God is concealed. We know Him from His works. Those works can be studied scientifically and make a very strong case that there is a God. That is what I needed. That is what I have. I don't resent or despise your faith. Everyone has the right to his own mode of interpretation. Your faith is no less than mine, not worse than mine, nor is it better than mine. We are all equal in this. Further, no religion is better than any other.turell_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

And then, if the next morning, there sprouted up a sapling with no Homer on it, would all of those ten million design inferences, which yesterday were totally invalid, suddenly become valid, because of the existence of an unmarked tree?
No. We would first need to examine every tree to see precisely at which age of a tree, at which moment in tree development, Homeric text might be expected to appear. We need to rule out all conceivable non-design explanations. Perhaps what we are looking at is not a tree after all, for all trees have a Homeric inscription.Mung_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

turell, you tell us you went to med school. Why did you bother? did you assume anyone there really knew more about medicine than you when you got there? I'd have presumed, based on what you've told us about other areas of knowledge, that you would have just read a little of 1 or 2 books, on your own, then certainly no one could know any more than you. yet you tell us: But i do not accept organized religion, because I do not believe any thinking human has any more knowledge of God than I do. You tell us you've read some bible. Have you read rashi, rambam, ramban, ramchal, the tenaim, amoraim, savaraim, geonim, rishonim, acharonim, etc? Are you really *sure* none of them know more about G-d than you? Oh, I'm sorry, you said you don't *believe* anyone could. Is it *possible* you could be mistaken?es58_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Prof FX Gumby: You wrote @ 40: "What I meant was that to detect design (with whatever level of confidence), a conceptual distinction has to be made between designed stuff and not-designed stuff." Yes, they must be distinguished *conceptually*. That does not entail that one would need the physical presence of some undesigned objects in order to detect designed ones, and hence that there must be some undesigned objects in the universe. If I carved portions of the Greek text of Homer into every tree in the world, would you argue that we could not be sure that the inscriptions were designed, on the grounds that we have no tree without Homer on it for comparison? Would you argue that, for all we know, trees just naturally grow with coherent portions of the Iliad carved into them, and so the inference that someone externally inflicted the marks was unsound? And then, if the next morning, there sprouted up a sapling with no Homer on it, would all of those ten million design inferences, which yesterday were totally invalid, suddenly become valid, because of the existence of an unmarked tree? That is the logic of your argument. What you fail to see is that we do not detect design by comparing some objects with others. We detect design by comparing theoretical expectations with the empirical data before us. This can be done object by object, without any reference to other actual objects. And there is no limit on the number of designed objects that may exist. Perhaps there are no designed objects; perhaps all objects are designed. It is not a zero-sum game. Where the reality of one thing is only relative to another (lighter/darker, small/large, fast/slow, etc.) it is true that we must compare one object to another, in order to form valid conclusions. But where the reality of a thing is absolute, no physical comparison is necessary. A watch's design is absolute, and the concept of a bunch of metal parts lying loosely in trash bin allows us to see that. Even if there were no loose metal parts in trash bins anywhere in the universe, we could know for a certainty that every watch in the universe was designed, because when we look at the parts in the context of the watch, we can imagine them outside the context of the watch, and, based on our knowledge of natural laws, infer that they could not have formed the watch without intelligent guidance. In sum, your argument is fallacious. And it has been refuted before, in other venues. But we ID proponents find that bad arguments are like the mythical hydra; you chop off one head, and two more of the same spring up to face you. Either the people we encounter on these web sites are all novices who have never before tried out these arguments on any other web site (where they would have been refuted, and therefore learned not to offer the faulty argument again), or they are seasoned debaters who know perfectly well that their arguments are invalid, but keep moving them to new web sites, in hopes of finding someone more gullible on the newer web sites than they were able to find on the old. So which is it in your case, "Professor Gumby"? Is this the first time you've offered this argument, or the umpteenth? T.Timaeus_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

...and getting a genuine dialogue going, to explore possible common ground.
As long as it's not made of jello.Mung_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Prof FX Gumby: Thanks for your rejoinder. 1. Regarding alien crystals etc. These are poor examples. They are examples of things which *look undesigned* but are really designed. Failure to detect design in such things is entirely compatible with ID theory. Dembski explicitly allows for false negatives. (Didn't I already say that in my previous remarks to you?) What you need to do is show that all the examples which *look designed*, yield false positives: e.g., the cardiovascular system in the human body, the bat's combination of wings and sonar, the avian lung. Or at the most basic level, the functioning of a living cell. Have you looked at Behe's discussion of the flagellar transport system (not the flagellum, the flagellar transport system) in *The Edge of Evolution*? Doesn't it look designed to you? Do you have any idea how such an elaborate, integrated system could have evolved by chance plus natural selection? If not, why would you believe that it did? Remember, ID theory isn't required to establish design for *everything*. If it can do so in even one case, classical Darwinism is done for, since (according to Darwin himself) the theory must be able to explain everything without intelligent input, or it is entirely worthless. 2. You wrote: "My point about design vs. not-design was that such a perspective necessarily limits God." And *my* point was that it *doesn't*. And I gave my reasons. What you have done here is simply repeat your claim, without even addressing my reasons. And a repetition is not a refutation. 3. Regarding Denton's book, you don't have to spend any money to read it. In this internet age, people often forget that there is this old-fashioned but great institution called the public library. If you live in a largish town with a largish library, the book will almost certainly be there. And if you live in a little town with only a small library, there is a system of interlibrary lending through which your local library can get just about any book for you. 4. You wrote: "You see, that’s part of the problem right there. I make none of those claims." Perhaps not, but you were agreeing with a conclusion of many TEs who do make those claims, and who base the conclusion you were endorsing directly upon them. However, I am perhaps assuming too much acquaintance with TE arguments and TE literature on your part. You may be arguing on a different basis. If so, you'll have to state your own understanding of God more clearly, and show me how God-as-designer is somehow an unacceptable concept for whatever form of theistic religion it is that you affirm. 5. Re your last paragraph on "what ID claims": ID claims to be able, without relying on any theological assumptions, to arrive at the conclusion of a designer; then, those IDers who happen to be Christian *privately* (not in their capacity as ID theorists) choose to identify that designer with the Christian God, and so on for Jewish ID proponents, Muslim ID proponents, etc. That's the sum total of ID's entanglement with theology. Now, compare that with TE. TEs *assume* the existence of a Christian God (I know of no Muslim, Jewish or Hindu TEs), as a matter of faith, and 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, 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. This paradoxical conclusion is thus built upon a number of debatable theological and scientific assumptions. Note that the debatable starting assumptions made by the leading TEs are much more numerous than the starting assumptions made by IDers, who do not even presume the existence of God within their arguments, and who have no a priori commitment to evolution or any of its purported mechanisms. ID thus comes out as the most cautious, least presumptuous approach to explaining the apparent design in nature, whereas TE comes out as laden with presuppositions. Of course, there are thoughtful TEs or TE-leaning people -- nullasalus among them -- who do not rest their position on a set of arbitrary assumptions. If all TEs were like nullasalus, rather than Ken Miller or Karl Giberson, there would be much more constructive dialogue between ID and TE. And I think that's what nullasalus is up to in this column -- getting beyond the culture-war vendettas which have generated so much bad behavior from both sides, and getting a genuine dialogue going, to explore possible common ground. I support this intention unreservedly. T.Timaeus_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply