A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement

_{Jonathan Bartlett

July 7, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

In a recent post on Biologos, Kathryn Applegate concluded her criticism of Michael Behe. Interesting, though, was this statement:

Many scientists agree with Behe that evolution may have been guided in some mysterious way by a Mind.

This is very interesting, precisely because the core of ID is whether or not the origins of life (including evolution) have been guided by a mind (or a designer, or an agent, depending on your terminology). It is interesting that Biologos and the Intelligent Design movement converge at this point, precisely because it is really the only point of ID that matters.

Applegate has several criticisms of Behe and his methods. I don’t care to get into whether or not they are legitimate on this post. What I want to focus on, however, is that the idea that evolution was guided by a mind appears to now be a shared idea of both Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement. The difference, for what its worth, appears in her next statement:

But whether or not the methods of science could ever rigorously detect teleology—mindful purpose—by studying the physical world is hotly debated. Most working scientists I know do not believe science is equipped for such a task.

What Applegate is saying is that, yes, many scientists think that evolution was guided by a mind, but, no, science is not up to this task.

Whether or not you agree with the current stream of thought from Behe, Dembski, Marks, or many others in this field, it is good to keep in mind what is being done – expanding the purview of science. If you think that the current methods of science aren’t up to the task of detecting the guidance of a mind, why stand in the way of those who think that it might be detected? Friendly criticism is always welcome, but why throw stones? Why not, instead, take the time to ask the necessary questions, probe the limits of what is possible, and develop new methodologies? This seems to be a much more constructive approach than simply tossing stones from the sidelines.

Since Biologos is on record saying that it is okay for a scientist to think that a mind guided evolution, why not also allow that scientist to investigate that thought? Certainly, the first steps in such an investigation will be rocky – many false paths will be trodden, and many wrong turns taken – but if it is true that it is guided by a mind, isn’t this a worthy subject for a scientist to pursue?

Since Biologos no longer has any philosophical disagreement with Intelligent Design (only a practical one), why don’t we then join together to see what is possible? Why don’t we join together to see if we can correct our errant methodologies and come up with better, more reliable ones? This seems like a worthy goal to pursue together, doesn’t it? What could be better than learning more about the teleological forces behind evolution?

Let’s work with each other, not against each other. If we do, we shall learn wonderful things together.

Comments

Apollos, Thanks for the reply, and I'm glad my position was made clearer. I would only add that it's not only the case that I believe it's an all or nothing situation (Put short: If ID is ruled out as science, no-ID is ruled out as well. If no-ID is not ruled out, ID is not ruled out either.), but I think "science" as science rarely shows what people think it does. What many ID proponents would happily chalk up to "nature" or "unguided material causes", I would say is wildly unsettled. Even Bill Dembski notes that ID can give off false negatives and that everything can be 'designed' - a point I think is often overlooked. Anyway, more on topic: Sure, I don't think ID is going to be reconciled with Biologos fully anytime soon, nor does that seem to be what Timaeus or johnnyb is gunning for, unless I misread them. But I think the sort of common ground I'm talking about is important to establish. Put it this way: If Biologos can't even agree to that much - if the Biologos position is 'Evolution is utterly unguided, man appeared by chance alone, God neither directed nor foresaw the arrival of man - but we're still Christians who believe in God!', then that's that. There's no common ground, no dialogue to speak of. A person with such position doesn't just reject ID, they reject design, period, and the only thing that could come from discussion is capitulation from one party. But if the Biologos position is something closer to what I outlined? Then, at least, there is some common ground. There are beliefs in common to be discussed, without requiring ID proponents to give up their positions on design, etc. Even if rapt across the board agreement couldn't happen, some sort of fruitful cooperation and mutual respect could be possible. I fail to see why this development would be a bad thing, even if Biologos continues to disagree with ID on ID's core commitments. And even there, wouldn't it be nice for them to actually disagree with ID's actual core commitments, rather than some cheap rhetorical imitation of such? But what can I say - I value cooperation when possible, even if such is imperfect. And I admit I'd like to see Biologos and ID, without ID capitulating on its core positions, staking out a qualified shared view in opposition to science abusing New Atheists and other such. And I think ID in particular is keenly capable of this - look at the Big Tent. Look at how major ID proponents have been dedicated in explaining the intellectual limits of ID, arguing that it's not limited to Christianity alone. (* God, with the usual caveat that ID only speaks of design or designers. But with Biologos, they're expressly talking about God as designer, so...)nullasalus_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

PS: Apollos, perhaps we can start with 1,000 bit strings of functional symbolic information. We can readily measure number of bits, and we can observe symbolic function. We can even assign it a bit value: 1/0 for the simplest case. How many observed algorithmically or linguistically functional strings of that length do we observe being produced by accident or mechanical necessity without intelligent direction? Does anyone seriously believe that MS Office 2010 was produced by an army of monkeys banging away at keyboards at random over in Redmond? Or, that the machine it runs on was the result of a tornado hitting Austin Texas? So, why do we believe that the more intricate and complex, far more sophisticated software and hardware in say a bacterium was the product of chance and blind necessity? Worse, if you were to see a self-replicating robot, would you infer that it was produced by a hurricane hitting an aerospace junkyard? (And that is a fairly direct comparison with the complexity of a living, self-replicating cell.)kairosfocus_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

A bit late to the party . . . I see Gregory, 27:
The problem is that ID theory is not proposed in social or cultural sciences because it is, for pun with words, a no-brainer. ID is being proposed in natural sciences and wants to include extra-natural causes. This seems backwards and nonsensical to me now . . .
And, HornSpiel in 70:
If there is intelligent intervention in the development of life Science will surly hit a road block and finally have to admit ignorance. ID does not help anyone if it tries to short circuit that process. Scientists need to come to that conclusion themselves. And you can be sure that will not be any time soon.
Both of these remarks are inadvertently deeply revealing: 1 --> Science at its best is/should be an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on observation, experiment, theorising, logico-mathematical analysis and reasoned discussion among the informed. 2 --> Once unfettered truth-seeking is explicitly or implicitly abandoned, science in our day easily degenerates into thinly veiled evolutionary materialist ideology, which traffics under false colours of knowledge and truth. 3 --> And, unfortunately, that is what has implicitly, subtly happened in the two cites. In the first, "extra-natural" is little more than a thinly veiled allusion to the untenable dichotomy natural/supernatural. 4 --> But in fact, we routinely and consistently observe many objects in our world that trace to artificial/ intelligent and purposeful causes, as opposed to natural ones tracing to chance circumstances or patterns and blind mechanical necessity. And, we can routinely observe that where complex, specified (especially functionally specific) information is present, the directly obse4rvfed cause is just as routinely art not nature. 5 --> The classic relevant examples are discrete state information-bearing entities, especially where there is algorithmic process, or coded meaningful expression. (Text in posts in this tread are an obvious example in point.) 6 --> This also explodes the rhetorical framing of "social science" vs "natural science." For, information theory is a specifically and widely recognised scientific discipline in which the really important things are intelligently caused. (Just think about the key metric signal to noise ratio and related concepts such as noise factor or noise temperature.) 7 --> it is also quite simple to show on configuration space grounds that once digital symbol strings get long enough, functional ones are beyond the reach of chance and blind mechanical necessity on the gamut of our observed cosmos. 8 --> Just 1,000 bits of such dFSCI specifies 1.07 * 10^301 states, far more than our observed cosmos [~10^80 atoms] can access in its thermodynamically credible lifespan. That is a random-walk based search that starts from an arbitrary initial configuration will be unable to scratch the surface of the haystack and is not a plausible mechanism to get to the needle. 9 --> But intelligences routinely produce such dFSCI. 10 --> And, of course, in those self-replicating automata we call cells, such algorithmic coded information plays a central role. So, we have good empirical grounds for inducing the conclusion that the best explanation for such dFSCI in the cell is: art. Even where, as a matter of course, we were not around to observe it. 11 --> Which brings us to the actual scientific project in design thought: the empirically based investigation of observable (and often measurable) signs of intelligence. 12 --> Similarly, in the second case, the implicit assumption is that design thinkers are "as opposed to" scientists. In short, the implicit assumption is that evolutionary materialism is quietly imposed as a methodological [or, often, outright worldview level] constraint, censoring out the very possibility of seeking an alternative to material explanations tracing to chance plus blind mechanical necessity acting on matter and energy. 13 --> But when such a constraint is imposed a priori, it becomes a controlling assumption, and here also an ideological one as it is being used to automatically dismiss anyone who will not play by materialistic rules regardless of the first casualty of such imposition: science as a truth seeking endeavour. 14 --> When that sort of imposition happens and is institutionally embedded like we are plainly seeing, only the outright breakdown of the institution mediated by scandals will suffice to break the power of that control. _______________ Given the importance of science, we cannot afford such a discrediting breakdown. So, instead, we need to critically examine the imposed assumptions, and reform the praxis of science. Before it is too late. GEM of TKIIkairosfocus_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Phaedros, I agree. The assumption that design is an illusion is metaphysical to its core, and requires a prior commitment to materialist philosophy. To pursue apparent design as actual design is free from this bias, as long as material causes are allowed as a possibility and not a requirement. The provisionality of our interpretation of data is resolute. --------------------- nullasalus, thanks for the clarification. For the record I didn't interpret your comments as hostile or derogatory. However by gleaning from your posts over the last couple of years, I gather your position on ID is roughly (to sum up and paraphrase): that if detecting design is off limits, so should be ruling it out. This is at the core of both scenarios you provide. While I see your position as consummately fair (as is your role as a friendly ID critic) I haven't yet perceived the utility of accepting those terms, at least by ID proponents (and I understand now that you didn't intend to suggest that). As I see it, when TE declares the non-science of ID creates artificially and superficially a domain of investigation that is off limits to science -- and presents as an attempt to protect God, or theology in general, or science, about which I don't see a need. If there truly is a domain that is off limits, I believe it will present itself forcefully; such may be the case with the event horizon of a black hole. If we aren't allowed to look, we will not be able to see. This is my own view. There are no good theological reasons that I can see for here speaking on behalf of God and declaring as sacrilege the investigation of a specific domain of causes, especially since this means accepting a faulty premise, i.e., strictly material causes alone. (But perhaps I'm reading in too much.) There are also no good ethical or scientific reasons that I've encountered for rejecting ID. If material causes are indeed sufficient as an explanation for life then proponents promoting that hypothesis should be free to promote their theory along the lines of evidence, and dispense with schoolyard politics and territorial disputes. I think we can agree that there is no valid scientific reason to believe without question that material causes are sufficient to explain the biological singularity; however an honest investigation would leave all possible causes on the table and allow evidence to provide a sorting mechanism to retain those that are plausible, leading to that which is most likely. For my part, your scenarios would represent progress only in that such admissions (or concessions) would potentially establish a reasonable disagreement. As it stands, it seems most ID critics benefit rhetorically from mischaracterizations of ID, and so avoid solid, scientific and methodological reasons for a difference, and thus grounds for a reasonable debate. By its opponents, Intelligent Design is effectively labeled as scientific and theological heresy; it's labeled and ridiculed; its proponents are demonized and intellectually demoted; and ID remains unchallenged on its own definition of itself -- which, in my opinion, is because Biologos can't meet that challenge. Forgive my rambling response. In short, in my opinion there can only be common ground with ID by those willing to accept the validity (or at least the testability) of design detection on scientific grounds; theological moorings will not suffice.Apollos_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

"Again as Gregory has already pointed out, “intelligent cause” is already allowed in the social sciences, where it is applied to human agents and on the fringes, to possible ET intelligence and animal intelligence." Having spent my career in programming some of the results I saw could not be described as intelligently designed as the programs produced embodied the height of stupidity and lack of design. Thus I wonder about Gregory's intelligent cause in the social sciences. Maybe pseudo random causation by human or animal agents would often be a better description. Dave Wgingoro_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

"nullasalus" (#79) wrote: "...the ID position, which of course views ID as scientific..." Is that present or future tense? Phillip Johnson said (as quoted by Jay Grelen, “Witnesses for the Prosecution,” World magazine, November 30, 1996): "This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science … It’s about religion and philosophy." Ten years later, Johnson is quoted as saying: "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world." - quoted by Michelangelo D’Agostino in an article, “In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley,” Berkeley Science Research, 10, Spring 2006 (http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution). My understanding, based on the above, is that the ID position views ID as hopefully being scientific some day, but that day has not yet arrived. If anyone disagrees with that, please tell us when (after 2006, obviously) ID became "scientific."PaulBurnett_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Apollos, I think I may be misunderstood here, so let me try to clarify. I am not saying that ID proponents would or should themselves affirm the contents of those two "possible responses" I outlined. Obviously, I think there would be a gulf between those positions and the ID position, which of course views ID as scientific, etc. But, Timaeus (And of course others - originally johnnyb) was discussing possible common ground between ID and Biologos, and ways that progress could be had in the discussion between both sides. I took Timaeus to be saying that if Biologos is committed to the idea that all of nature (particularly biological nature) came about utterly blind and by chance - that God *in no way* foresaw, planned, or guided the results of evolution - that there is nothing for ID and Biologos to talk about. They are fundamentally opposed. At the same time, there are ID proponents who accept evolution, even macroevolution, and who see evidence for design through and within evolution. And there are TEs who both affirm evolution (again, even macroevolution) yet who see the entire process as ultimately guided and itself designed. In which case God used evolution as a tool, speaking loosely, to achieve certain ends. So again, I wonder if these things would constitute progress. The statements as they were would entail A) The rejection that science or evolution 'proves' life in general, and man in particular, was accidental, "made by chance", unintended, etc, B) An openness to design arguments being made about evolution and natural science, even if these are considered to be a different kind of argument and reasoning from the purely scientific, and C) The rejection of Darwinism, insofar as Darwin's theory required the affirmation that man came about by chance, utterly without guidance or intention by God, etc. Hopefully the angle I'm coming from here is clearer now.nullasalus_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Apollos- "ID is attempting to demonstrate that design is an artifact of agency — and that not only is design intuitively obvious, but that its a scientifically valid pursuit to establish the presence thereof." I think this is a very important point here. The presence of purpose, and therefore design, in nature is readily apparent and therefore it makes much more scientific sense to pursue that observation as actual design rather than the appearance of design, which is a metaphysical approach.Phaedros_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

nullasalus @74, Why should ID proponents, or anyone for that matter, accept a definition of science that rules out the objective detection of design features in nature? Would this be a theological consideration, a political, or a scientific one? What benefit would there be to ID or to science in general if biological origins causes were dispossessed from scientific investigation? I suppose my questions are somewhat rhetorical (to accept your conditions is to accept the dissolution of ID as a scientific endeavor, at least in part) but I'd be interested in your thoughts, or your clarification if I've misunderstood.Apollos_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

I second StephenB's praise of Timaeus' comment @72. There is little in common between Theistic Evolution (or theistic Darwinism if you prefer) and ID in regards to neo-Darwinian evolution. And attempts toward bridge building are not constructive in developing ID as a scientific endeavor -- these can only weaken ID scientifically in attempts to strengthen it politically. Time, along with ongoing research are the ally of ID at this point, provided Intelligent Design proponents don't acquiesce to temptations of being popular and well-perceived by mainstream elites. There is no difference between TE and philosophical materialism where NDE is concerned. The assertion that blind processes (material laws) can create life and the diversity thereof, is the commonality paramount to both philosophies. That TE has a patina of theism does nothing to change this. While individuals in both the TE and ID camps may share certain theological beliefs, their perceptions about design in the natural world are not held in common. Theistic Evolutionists are holding out for purely material explanations of biological mechanisms, rejecting the notion that design is objectively quantifiable. ID is attempting to demonstrate that design is an artifact of agency -- and that not only is design intuitively obvious, but that its a scientifically valid pursuit to establish the presence thereof. As it stands, there is no verifiable mechanism for the origin of life and no plausible scenario for its development de novo via material causes; nor is there a verifiable mechanism for the development of novel, functionally specified, biological nano-machines or their supporting code from the ostensible Universal Common Ancestor. That such mechanisms exist is the product of faith, giving birth to conjecture. Insisting that material causes are the only allowable explanations for observed effects is the last refuge of a desolate philosophy.Apollos_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

There's no reason design detection should be thought of as "unscientific" or purely philosophical and metaphysical.Phaedros_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, So I’d say to Falk, Giberson, etc.: the ball is in your court. Show a willingness to budge on the *mechanisms* of evolution, show a willingness to budge on the possibility of design detection, and then we’ll talk. Let me ask you this. What if Falk, Giberson and company gave the following reply to you: "While we are tremendously skeptical about the possibility of detecting design in biology and nature, are also just as skeptical about the possibility of ruling it out. Science, as we see it, is incapable both of determining "This biological structure came about without any guidance or foresight" or "This biological structure came about with some kind of guidance or foresight". Thus, for any who thinks Darwinism must entail a a commitment to a view such that divine guidance and/or teleology must be denied, we can say: We reject that view, and if that view were what Darwinism was, we would reject Darwinism." Would this, to you, be progress? What about the following: "While we believe science, even the science of evolution, is incapable of ruling in or out design, we do believe that there are extra-scientific arguments which can be made in favor of design. While these may refer to the science, the arguments themselves may be philosophy, metaphysical, or theological, and can themselves have some or much intellectual force. We at Biologos are open to this manner of "design detection", but we stipulate that such detection is not itself science. It is a different form of reasoning and knowledge, though a valid one." Again, I ask: Would this be progress? I am also curious of the responses of other ID proponents/advocates here, including StephenB. And keep in mind, I'm skeptical that Biologos would make these moves - my low opinion here is obvious. But these seem to me like moves Biologos could make if they wanted to honestly find some common ground with ID. Otherwise, as Timaeus might say, no one is really seeking common ground here. Just capitulation.nullasalus_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @72. Thank you for an excellent summary.StephenB_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

I'm glad to see the topic changed from the age of the earth, which has nothing to do with ID. Regarding the possible co-operation between Biologos and ID, I think that in the final analysis it boils down to this: if Biologos is intellectually committed not only to "evolution" but to the specifically neo-Darwinian model of evolution, or to any model of evolution which depends fundamentally on chance to generate novel forms, then there is no hope of any co-operation between the two. ID's whole raison d'etre is to show the massive implausibility of an evolutionary process that proceeds in this way. ID could not surrender its Darwin-skepticism without ceasing to be itself. So if Biologos is going to make acceptance of neo-Darwinism the condition of being considered a competent scientist (and of being a competent discussion partner in the area of religion and science), then Darrel Falk's claims of common ground here are vacuous. It would be like Calvin saying to the Jews: "We have so much in common with you that we would really like to put aside all unnecessary differences and work together. And to show our sincerity in this matter, we'll accept you as theologically competent discussion partners if you first accept Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation. After that, we'll be *glad* to listen to the opinions of your rabbis on the interpretation of Isaiah 53." So I'd say to Falk, Giberson, etc.: the ball is in your court. Show a willingness to budge on the *mechanisms* of evolution, show a willingness to budge on the possibility of design detection, and then we'll talk. But nothing that has been posted on Biologos for the past year indicates the slightest willingness to budge, and the frequency of explicitly anti-ID columns and snide side-comments against ID makes it extremely unlikely that Falk's overture can be sincere - even if he himself isn't consciously aware of being insincere. Biologos has to make up its mind whether it is an organization devoted to *exploring possibilities* about the relationship between biology and theology, or whether it is an organization dedicated to the defense of certain forms of TE/EC, to the exclusion of ID and of all forms of theistic evolution which don't sufficiently kowtow to neo-Darwinism. Its diplomatic rhetoric is that it is first type of organization; its deeds strongly suggest that it is the second. T.Timaeus_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

I'm gavelling the discussion pertaining to the age of the earth.Clive Hayden_{July 11, 2010
July
07
Jul
11
11
2010
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Gregory has ably articulated my view on why DI should take a position on the age of the earth. the fact that they won't is evidence that theirs is a crusade to change the way science works. The DI definition of ID contrasts "intelligent cause" with "undirected process such as natural selection." In may other places we hear of the inadequacy of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution. The launching pad of ID was arguably Darwin on trial. I say this to defend my assertion that ID is primarily about changing how evolutionary science is practiced. (No surprise then that most ID scientists accept the finding of other branches of science regarding the age of the earth.) Again as Gregory has already pointed out, "intelligent cause" is already allowed in the social sciences, where it is applied to human agents and on the fringes, to possible ET intelligence and animal intelligence. The commitment in the natural sciences to natural causes and explanations is a presupposition, that is, it is axiomatic. It's logically inconsistent to use science to assert that it's axiomatic foundation is inadequate. If naturalistic science can't explain something then all it can say is "we don't know" or "it is highly improbable." If you change the foundation to include an unspecified designer with unspecified (i.e. unlimited) abilities, you no longer have science. What you have for all intents and purposes is theistic science. I say theistic because the designer can do any kind of design ant any time any where which pretty much describes the powers of a deity. The results of such a science would, I submit, not be useful explanation of how the world works, rather something more akin to Just So stories. No, the problem is not evolutionary science, or even Darwinian evolution, but philosophies that use scientific inquiries into origins to destroy theism and people's faith. I wonder if ID and BL can agree on that. The kind of research ID fellows are doing can be useful to challenge science. For instance I do not think evolutionary scientists have paid enough attention to the question of information accumulation in the genome. If there is intelligent intervention in the development of life Science will surly hit a road block and finally have to admit ignorance. ID does not help anyone if it tries to short circuit that process. Scientists need to come to that conclusion themselves. And you can be sure that will not be any time soon.HornSpiel_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Gregory - I would like to point out - there are a great number of things which I believe for theological reasons, and a great number of things which I believe for a combination of theological and scientific reasons, and a great number of things I believe because they have intuitive appeal. I can say that, of these, I disagree with evolution on the basis of a theology/science combination, but I disagree with natural selection simply because it is bad science combined with bad reasoning. I've heard many good arguments for evolution (i.e. common descent + naturalism). I've never heard a good argument for natural selection as the engine of evolution.johnnyb_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Acipenser- "If you said that it would indicate that you have litle familiarity with the workings of science particularly the concept of significant figures seems to not concern you in the least." Lol I guess that went right over your head.Phaedros_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

johnnyb @ 46: By "evolution" I meant macroevolution. And there certainly are ID proponents who deny that macroevolution happened -- including some major ID proponents. And there are some other well-known ID proponents who, while not outrightly denying that macroevolution happened, give strong signals that they don't believe it happened. I wouldn't say that Biologos is "more open" to YEC than to ID. Rather, I'd say that Biologos is "more polite" to YEC than to ID. This makes sense, since they are trying to convert YECs to belief in Darwinian evolution, and you have to be polite to people you are trying to persuade of something. But no one at Biologos is "open" to YEC in the sense of seriously entertaining the possibility that YEC might be true. The falsehood of YEC is presumed by every columnist at Biologos, and the effort is directed to finding the right form of delicate intra-Christian rhetoric to get YECs to see the wrongness of their position. T.Timaeus_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

This is a debate that has already been hashed out endlessly. There are no legitimate scientific challenges to the data as summarized.
Now where have I heard that before?tragic mishap_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

magnan, You need to choose evidences for Old Earth more carefully. Neither Grand Canyon nor "huge fossil record" are particularly good ones. In any case, Old Earth or Young Earth have no bearing on the scientific validity of ID. It is very unfortunate that some hold this question to be a test for ID acceptance (for political reasons?)inunison_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Phaedros: If I said that I thought the Earth 4.3526575634524534656355245346456467383673672456562562456246 billion years old does that make my views more valid to you?
If you said that it would indicate that you have litle familiarity with the workings of science particularly the concept of significant figures seems to not concern you in the least.Acipenser_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

This is a debate that has already been hashed out endlessly. There are no legitimate scientific challenges to the data as summarized.magnan_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

"Commonsense observation" Ok that won't give you exact dates. "Take a look at the Grand Canyon, a record of a billion years of slow deposition of sediments. " Based on the assumption that it always occurred at the same rate, that there wasn't a huge flood or multiple flooding periods, etc etc. "The age of the earth, of the various geological eras, and of the embedded fossils are established by very many correlating radiometric rock and meteorite datings by isotopic decay measurements." I think that there are many problems with isotopic decay as a dating mechanism not least of which are uniformitarian assumptions and the issue of whether or not the sample was contaminated at some point or many points.Phaedros_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Commonsense observation and direct geological evidence. Take a look at the Grand Canyon, a record of a billion years of slow deposition of sediments. Take a look at the huge fossil record. The age of the earth, of the various geological eras, and of the embedded fossils are established by very many correlating radiometric rock and meteorite datings by isotopic decay measurements. The only way this could be wrong is if they were deliberately created to deceive.magnan_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Just one piece. Not the entire litany of it. I'm sure there's some right?Phaedros_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Phaedros: "Point me to what you believe is the best evidence for an old Earth." That would be too long for this blog.magnan_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Gregory- "You say you’re “open to whatever the evidence actually says.” Well, ‘the evidence,’ studied by geologists, astronomers, cosmologists and many other natural-physical scientists, many of them religious believers, who spent/d their lives trying to understand the facts of the natural world, says the Earth is ‘old.’ Do you thus accept this?" I've seen evidence for both viewpoints. Point me to what you believe is the best evidence for an old Earth. If I said that I thought the Earth 4.3526575634524534656355245346456467383673672456562562456246 billion years old does that make my views more valid to you? Or does it have to be more exact? Older? Younger?Phaedros_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Gregory, I am just saying that you convolute the contribution of science to human knowledge with gestapo like thought policing. Thats not what science is supposed to do. My experience is that ID focus on what science can contribute to human knowledge and not on any form of thought policing. Hope you get that. A true neutral scientist would not insist that anyone must submit to any majority view. Scientific consensus is not a social dogma. Scientific consensus just constitute the body of knowledge that has to be considered by any new evidence. We expect the new evidence to either support or contradict the consensus. Why would you expect scientific consensus to be a social dogma, that anyone needs to submit to? Does it have to do with your inability to distinguish between religious/metaphysical views and science.mullerpr_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Gregory- "This is an important source of misunderstanding and tension between the two perspectives. And it is not BioLogos that can fix this problem, it is only the IDM that can do it." No, it is BioLoogos that has the problem with this and not ID. If this is the only thing that is stopping them from getting along then I say just drop it and get on with conducting good biology.Phaedros_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply