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

Again the age of the earth is not a central focus of ID as it is about detecting design in biology. What the personal opinions are of its proponents are thus not a huge concern for me and they shouldn't be for you.Phaedros_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Meyer, Behe, and Berlinski believe the Earth is old so you're count is off by at least one.Phaedros_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Hello mullerpr, You asked: “Are you saying that OEC should be on the membership card for UD and ID?” Well, I’m not sure what a ‘membership card’ means. UD and ID are not a political party or a WallMart Club. What I’m suggesting is that UD and ID should make it absolutely clear that persons believing in a ‘young’ Earth are giving UD and ID a bad reputation among scientists and that the evidence points to an ‘old’ earth. It is a question of ‘credibility,’ which is as important in science as it is in other realms. People simply aren’t going to believe used car salespersons peddling them a ‘new view of natural science.’ They want to deal with credible spokespersons and YEC is not credible in a broad sense scientifically and is predominantly dismissed outside of evangelical Protestant churches. In other words, one cannot be a ‘good scientist’ in natural-physical sciences and also accept a ‘young earth’ at the same time. Note please: I did not say that one cannot be a good doctor, engineer or computer scientist and be a biblical literalist or even fundamentalist who believes in a ‘young’ earth for religious reasons. But the fact is that believing in a ‘young’ Earth is similar to believing the Earth is flat and/or that the Sun revolves around it. Holding such a view is tantamount to being discredible whenever such a person brings up ‘intelligent design,’ no matter what Id’s merits are (which I personally think there are) in other fields. It is strange that people have brought up musicologists, coroners, and engineers, when I am specifically saying that biologists, chemists, physicists and other natural-physical scientists cannot appear credible if they don’t take a position on the age of the Earth, which the ‘lower’ sciences of geology, astronomy and cosmology all confirm: the Earth is ‘old’ and *not* ‘young’ and it brings no hono(u)r to Christians who ignore the evidence or feign righteous rebellion to protect their biblical literalism. It would help their religious maturity to accept the natural scientific evidence and rebuild their Christian worldview upon it and together with it. Faith is a higher category than biology; but truth cannot contradict truth either and an ‘old’ Earth is no more a threat to Christendom than was heliocentrism. - - Phaedros, 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? No, I am not for ostracizing. But if Christians want to come in and play heavies *in science* based not on scientific knowledge, but rather on their own personal (i.e. not Catholic or Orthodox) interpretation of Holy Scripture, then yes, they do need to be censured (not censored!). Most Catholics and Orthodox accept an ‘old’ Earth. It is mainly evangelical Protestants who don’t and this is partly because they are the most individualistic (and thus, the most widely divergent) in their Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Again, UD folks, the reason I am writing this is because BioLogos takes a stand on age of Earth, while the IDM doesn't. 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. GregoryGregory_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Now to the research on ID leaders’ position on the age of the Earth: Of the 36 Fellows of the DI (dated July 2007), 16 have academic degrees in one or more of the following areas: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. The 16 names are: Meyer, Behe, Berlinski, Chien, Gonzalez, Wells, Bohlin, Hunter, Kaita, Kenyon, Minnich, Moreland, Pun, Schaeffer, Simmons and Thaxton. Of these all but two (Bohlin – who is not sure, i.e. agnostic – and Thaxton, the latter who might well accept an ‘old’ Earth – I didn’t find out exactly) believe the Earth is ‘old’ and *not* ‘young.’ Nelson is not counted as his degree from Chicago is in philosophy of biology and not in biology itself. Still, he would make 1 (possibly 2 or 3) out of 17 if he was counted, among DI Fellows who believe the Earth is ‘young.’ Thus, a *vast* majority of ID Leaders, almost everyone, who are active in the natural-physical sciences believe in an ‘old’ Earth. This research was conducted simply by typing in the name of the DI Fellow along with “million years” and texts were read carefully to confirm that the Fellow was not just describing someone else’s view but expressing their own view. Indeed, 14 (and quite possibly 15) out of 16, with one ‘not sure’ gives an overwhelming majority of ID leaders who believe in an ‘old’ Earth. Why then does the DI not make a position statement on this topic? “ID theorists generally accept the universe is 14 billion years old and began in the ``Big Bang.'' They accept that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that single-cell life -- bacteria, plankton and algae – began 3.8 billion years ago” – Joe Woodward (http://www.discovery.org/a/2919) Why then let ID be tainted with ‘anti-science’ types who believe the Earth is ‘young’ in the face of an abundance of contrary evidence? Doesn’t this just make ID look bad by association? The reason this is important is because, as HornSpiel (sorry for wrong spelling the first time) says, if ID is presented as a ‘scientific program’ then it should come forward openly about its views of the age of the Earth. Especially natural-physical scientists, whose realm of study is based to some degree on accepting the knowledge produced/generated at lower levels about the natural-physical world, cannot escape the fact that if they disagree with geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. based on their methods, then their own scientific results will inevitably also be called into question. This is simply unavoidable and IDs welcome to YECs has badly damaged its public image (except for among evangelical Christians, who are oftentimes Biblical literalists, and who relish the 'righteous underdog' role). The DI, trusting in good science and following the evidence where it leads, should have no problem in stating that the Earth is probably old and *not* young. This should be simple and easy and not such a controversial topic. What makes it controversial is that the DI gets its money and support from American evangelical Christians (AeCs) who are the most under-educated about natural-physical sciences among the Christian population and thus the most easily duped into accepting a Biblical literalist, young Earth scenario, not knowing that the evidence collected by their fellow Christians is easily available to consult. In other words, DI doesn't want to upset its funding sources, some of whom are YECs, so it avoids the age of the Earth question, thus compromising its scientific integrity. Many AeCs believe that to be a Christian and to accept an ‘old’ Earth is a contradiction and that to convert away from a ‘young’ Earth perspective is tantamount to embracing atheism. This is a sad story and brings shame on evangelicals in the USA. This is what BioLogos is trying to overcome, given that many BioLogos leaders are evangelicals themselves and also educated in the sciences and not just passive observers. “Ignoring the age of the earth while attempting to teach students natural history makes about as much sense as trying to teach American history without telling students that the American revolution began in 1775, which is to say, no sense at all.” - American education organization Why is this important in the discussion of ‘convergence’ between BioLogos and the intelligent design movement? Because BioLogos is going to the root of the differences whereas intelligent design, in trying to appear ‘natural scientific’, is ignoring the reality that the most significant problem people have with ‘evolution’ and with ‘natural selection’ is to be found in the way they read their Bible(s). BioLogos is offering help to anti-evolutionists, including YECs and IDists, on their Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Intelligent design is not offering such help. This is what makes BioLogos a more ‘balanced’ site for ‘science, philosophy and theology’ discourse. Timaeus said it himself: “TE/EC people would very much like to see ID people being more forthright about their theology, and this topic would help to evoke ID theology.” The topic of ID theology is almost absent from ID publications because ID desires to be ‘natural scientific’. It wants to change the definition of natural sciences to include extra-natural causality, i.e. the cause of ‘intelligence.’ But what it fails to understand, probably because it is lean on human-social scholars, is that ‘intelligence’ is *already accepted* as a cause in the Academy. Human intelligence or human decision-making is a ‘cause’ of human-social action; but this is not a ‘natural-physical science’ approach to the world. In other words, as some people are fighting for ‘justice’ between ‘science and religion,’ in fact an often forgotten and equally as important topic for conversation is the relationship between natural-physical and human-social sciences, along with applied sciences, and the inclusion rather than exclusion of philosophy from the discussion table/internet forums such as this. GregoryGregory_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Hello again Timaeus! The last time it seems we met you were provoking my interest about Henri Bergson and suggesting, if I remember correctly, that a neo-Bergsonian approach might be possible in our time. I thought you did a great job in taking on almost the entire ASA list, many of whom are TEs or ECs and who were sometimes misinformed about the meaning and mission of ‘intelligent design’. As you might remember from that time, I have many challenges for TEs and ECs and realize that there are, as you say, problems with such an approach. You write: “many TE/EC people would resist the idea that God performs any *special* action in evolution, and would argue that in evolution God always acts only through general laws of nature.” Yes, this is a significant hesitation for TE/EC people, i.e. they cringe at the word ‘intervention’ because they think ‘violate laws of nature’ is not how God acts in the universe. In my view, they have knitted their theologies too tightly with evolutionism, as an ideology (i.e. not only as a natural-physical science), and thus it biases their ability to ‘limit evolution.’ Iow, TE/ECs are least likely to give examples of ‘things that don’t evolve’ among Jews, Christians or Muslims. Let me be clear and up front here that I am neither a TE/EC nor an Idist. If anything, I could be called a neo-Idist or a post-TE/EC, though none here have likely yet encountered these terms. The terms ‘intelligent’ and ‘design’ do *not* belong in natural-physical sciences in my view. Instead, they belong (if anywhere), i.e. supplemented by other related terms, in human-social sciences where ‘making,’ ‘constructing,’ ‘building,’ etc. is a field welcome and legitimate for scientific study. But ‘design’ in natural-physical sciences is a violation of the commonly-held meaning of ‘natural science’ and worse, it does what most Idists in principle don’t wish to do, it puts God (the ‘Designer’) to the test. I realize that Idists want to change (not ‘evolve’) the commonly-held meaning of ‘natural science’ to include ‘intelligent causes’ but it is quite obvious to non-Idists that this attempt to change people’s grammar is a lost cause that flies in the face of the general public and also Christian scientists and scholars who study nature, culture, society, politics, economics, language, religion, etc. “Is the Dow Jones ‘intelligently designed’?” What a silly question! Gregory p.s. I am glad that you agree, “Identifying ‘how God guides biological (or natural-physical) evolution’ would likely be welcome both at UD and BioLogos,” with good and balanced qualifications.Gregory_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Hi Gregory, ID has nothing to say about designer and/or nature of his intelligence. I assumed that is made quite clear in numerous ID publications and that you are aware of it. It simply asks the question: Are there any natural systems that are displaying signs (effects) that we can reliably attribute to intelligence (mind). I think that is valid question that properly belongs in domain of natural sciences. Now, I accept that answer could be negative, if these natural information rich systems could be shown to "happen" by interaction of known natural laws and chance within probabilistic resources. Therefore in search for the answer(s), I see no need to invoke extra-natural or super-natural reasoning and methodology. So, I still don't understand where are you coming from when you state: “ID is being proposed in natural sciences and wants to include extra-natural causes.”inunison_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Gregory- I would say I'm open to whatever the evidence actually says, whatever that may be. I think that ostracizing fellow Christians is a bad thing, what about you?Phaedros_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Gregory, Are you saying that OEC should be on the membership card for UD and ID? The only thing you assert is to expose yourself as a person supporting thought policing and you implied BioLogos to do the same. If you are really interested in building bridges then you have to tone down on this gestapo stuff. In my previous post I urged science to assert its neutrality, why can't you focus on the science of ID? If you are uncertain about what scientific neutrality is, then let us talk about that. P.S. My experience is that the concept "fundamentalist" is a loaded concept and a veil for covering up manipulating or policing views under the banner of moderation. A recent example I experienced of this hypocrisy was when the French were also accused of being fundamentalist for outlawing the wearing of burkas in France. Who exactly decide what the moderate position is?mullerpr_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Hi inunison, Is 'intelligence' something 'extra-natural' in your opinion or not? Sure, if the un-named 'designer(s)' is/are aliens, then it/they can be called 'natural.' But if the 'designer/Designer' of biotic information is Allah, God, or Yahweh, then you have an 'entity' that is 'extra-natural' and not just 'natural'. Wouldn't you agree? I don't see ID being proposed in human-social sciences, only in natural-physical sciences or (by analogy in) applied sciences. Please show me otherwise if I am wrong. Thanks, GregoryGregory_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Timaeus - "there are some ID proponents who don’t think evolution happened at all" I don't think that's true. Especially when defined as "change over time". As far as I'm aware, all people's children look different from their parents. Gregory - "johnnyb and Phaedros believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old and not milliions of years old. Is this correct?" I don't know Phaedros' position, but it is basically true for myself (more specifically, I believe that the phanerozoic layers are a few thousand years old - I have no opinion on the deeper layers). Interestingly, though, is that BioLogos (or at least its individual members) have on many occasions been more open to Young-Earth Creationists than ID'ers. Note that most of their direct criticisms are aimed specifically at ID, and not at YEC.johnnyb_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Again, will get back to the main issues, but I simply must first confirm if I understand people's positions here. johnnyb and Phaedros believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old and not milliions of years old. Is this correct? I don't wish to put words in anyone's mouth or to misrepresent people. But that is what I'm hearing and johnnyb's connections with the Creation Research Society make this assumption much easier. Don't worry, folks, there is no person-evaluation here, just questions about scientific positions. I've been doing some research on ID's 'position' about the age of the Earth and will show that quite soon. Again, the power of this line of discussion in comparing UD or DI and BioLogos is as I said above: "BioLogos absolutely refuses to consider ‘young Earth’ as a legitimate possibility". The historicity of the first humans (in the monotheistic traditions, they are known, of course, as 'Adam' and 'Eve') is left an open question. So you won't find *any* young Earth creationists, Biblical literalists or a.k.a. fundamentalists at BioLogos, whereas they are not excluded from UD or DI and are instead perhaps welcomed for the connections they have with a huge book-buying market of evangelical Protestant Christians in America.Gregory_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

I think the foundation of bridge building in this regards would be to analyse and debate design detection as part of science in general. There are nothing to be gained when you ONLY argue metaphysical implications. A very good thing to take into account is that, science always study effects to infer the properties of possible causes. It is impossible to infer a complete set of descriptive properties of a specific cause. I am convinced ID only claim that, for certain effects in nature the best inference would be a cause with the property of intelligence or mind. This claim should be the focus of bridge building efforts and not the metaphysical consequences of finding causes with properties of mind. Looking at this as an interested bystander it does seem to me that there are certainly overtones of deist vs. theist views clouding the arguments. I can understand that if the current science establishment feels threatened by a revolution launched against their deistic and atheistic manipulations. Science should break free of this kind of manipulation and ID has shown real effort to regain metaphysical neutrality. It is TE's task to proof their neutrality from deist and atheist manipulations. Accusing ID of forcing theist views into science is not helping, it is just causing the focus to turn to metaphysics and not design detection. P.S. All scientists and the public at large have the right to conclude any metaphysical position. It is not the task of science to do that.mullerpr_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

Gregory. You claim that "ID is being proposed in natural sciences and wants to include extra-natural causes. " Would you care to substantiate this claim?inunison_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

Excellent debate between ID, TE and YEC positions was published under title "Three views on Creation and Evoltion", Editors J.P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds. Each view is presented in essay form and than critiqued by various scholars.inunison_{July 10, 2010
July
07
Jul
10
10
2010
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

I would add that, for those who take the position that science is for the most part flat out unable to tell the difference between "chance" and "design", or to detect design in nature - and who truly take this position, rather than only apply it to those who find design - then those who are "anti-science", or corrupting science, would include quite a number of supposed science defenders. Which could be one hell of an interesting fight to start.nullasalus_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, The thematic question of the gathering might be: Does God guide evolution, and if so, how? And if God *doesn’t* guide evolution, why do we maintain that he has anything to do with it? I think a third possible question could be, "And could science tell if God guides or guided evolution?" I actually suppose that there are more than a few TEs who would argue that God's intervention (direct or 'front-loaded') would/could be entirely invisible to science alone. I recall Stanley Salthe (an atheist, apparently, but who signed on the Dissent from Darwinism) once writing that just about any point where a person could argue "chance", another person could argue "design", with science being in no position to tell the difference.nullasalus_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Gregory: I agree with the others that you are getting too exercised over the "age of the earth" question. Not all science needs to be concerned with the age of the earth. When a coroner is being hired, no one asks him for his opinion on the age of the earth. No one argues that, if he doesn't accept an ancient earth, he can't possibly be a good scientist. They just want to know if he is good at telling the difference between murder and death by natural causes. So why should the science of ID, which is a science of design detection, have to answer questions about something which has nothing to do with design detection? TEs press this question on ID people is as a test of intellectual orthodoxy, not as a serious criticism of the information theory of Meyer or the explanatory filter of Dembski. They want the ID people who accept an old earth to either force the dissenters into line, or jettison them from the ID movement. But from ID's point of view, that is an unreasonable demand. If YECs share ID's views on the scientific character of design detection, why shouldn't ID people work with them -- *on design detection*? Should vegetarians refuse to work for environmental protection legislation alongside environmentalists who are not vegetarian? Why should someone have to agree with someone else on *everything* in order to work productively with the other person in some areas of common belief? It's almost as if TE is saying to Mike Behe and Bill Dembski and Steve Meyer: "Ditch that Nelson guy, and then we'll treat you better." But in fact if Behe etc. *did* ditch Nelson, TEs would then make further demands. They would say to Behe: "Either get a clear statement from Meyer and Dembski that macroevolution actually happened, or ditch them; then we'll treat you better." And if Behe did then ditch Meyer and Dembski, and asked for his due reward for betraying his friends and colleagues, TEs would then say: "Sorry, Mike, but we've decided that we can't accept you as a Christian scientist with intellectual integrity unless you repudiate this nonsense about design detection being scientific rather than a matter of faith, and unless you drop all your ridiculous opposition to Darwinian mechanisms, which are as certain as the laws of gravity." So the question arises: why should ID people worry in the slightest about pleasing TE people? As things stand, they could not please TE people without completely capitulating to the TE position. If TEs, in particular the TEs at Biologos, really want to build bridges with ID, they need to be more dialogical and less condescending, and they need cease speaking as if they are the arbiters of good science and good Christian theology. T.Timaeus_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

idnet @ 17: Excellent distinctions. Many TEs get badly confused over "purpose". I wish they would read your post. T.Timaeus_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

Gregory @ 12: "Identifying ‘how God guides biological (or natural-physical) evolution’ would likely be welcome both at UD and BioLogos." Agreed. One would think it would be a topic that would be of common interest. Of course, there are some ID proponents who don't think evolution happened at all, so "how God guided evolution" would be a pointless discussion for them. But for those ID proponents who believe that evolution happened, or might have happened, it should be a topic of interest. And I think TE/EC people would very much like to see ID people being more forthright about their theology, and this topic would help to evoke ID theology. However, there are problems on the TE/EC side as well. For some TE/EC people, "how God guided evolution" is an unacceptable phrase, which carries with it notions of "intervention", or, as they put it disparagingly, "tinkering" with the natural order. Denis Lamoureux, for example, has repudiated the term "guidance". The commitment of some TE/EC people to an almost Deistic form of naturalism (they would angrily deny being Deistic in theology, but in fact their conception of nature is often Deistic) makes it very difficult for them to allow any notion of God as guiding, steering, adjusting, coaxing, nudging, pulling, or otherwise influencing the course of nature. Of course, there are exceptions. For example, I think that Ted Davis, George Murphy, and R. J. Russell are all open to the view that God might guide or steer evolution in extremely subtle ways, perhaps hidden by quantum indeterminacy, so that nothing "supernatural" was observable to the eye or instruments of the scientist. Thus, new information could be subtly input through changes which would appear as "random" mutations. ID theorists like Behe and Dembski would not automatically reject such a conception of God's action, so it might seem that this conception could be a focus of some "peace talks" between the camps. But many TE/EC people would resist the idea that God performs any *special* action in evolution, and would argue that in evolution God always acts only through general laws of nature. As some of them put it, God no more needs to do something special to create the Cambrian explosion than he needs to do something special to keep Mars in its orbit. In short, I think TE/EC is such a mixed bag, and ID is such a mixed bag, that you couldn't really get a productive overall discussion between "the ID position" and "the TE position" on how God interacts with nature in evolution; rather, you could have some productive discussions between particular configurations of ID and TE people. I'm just pointing out some of the difficulties. I don't say that such discussions shouldn't be held. In fact, I think it would be wonderful if someone put together a conference based on your question. The thematic question of the gathering might be: "Does God guide evolution, and if so, how? And if God *doesn't* guide evolution, why do we maintain that he has anything to do with it?" I suspect that such a conference would have to be organized by a neutral third party, who would then invite selected ID and TE people to come and read papers. I don't think that the current leadership of ID is focused enough on theology to push that question to the forefront, and I don't think that the current leadership of Biologos really wants to raise the question of "guidance", there being such a strong prejudice in favor of pure naturalism over there. Some persuasive thinkers would have to coax people on both sides to participate. T.Timaeus_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Gregory - "There is no and will be no ID theory in geology, paleontology, astronomy or cosmology." I think I understand what you are saying as being, "if someone applies ID to one of these fields, then the YEC question then matters". In this I agree with you - or at least agree that it could possibly matter. On the other hand, I once had the opportunity to talk briefly with Walter ReMine. In that brief chat, he mentioned that his "message theory" shows design in the fossil record. At that point, I asked him whether he viewed that design as being part of flood geology or a progressive creation. He said that it was compatible with either. I haven't yet read ReMine's The Biotic Message (it is sitting in a stack of books next to my bed), so I can't go into any more details than that. In addition, I've mentioned here a way that ID could be useful in interpreting the fossil record. This isn't the same thing as *applying* ID to the fossil record (it isn't an ID theory of geology), but nonetheless it applies ID to paleontology, and, interestingly enough, is applicable whether the earth is old or young. So I agree that whether you are YEC or not will probably matter a lot more if someone developed an ID theory of these subjects, but not necessarily as much as you might think. As a side note, there is a lot more diversity of thought in YEC circles than you might expect. For instance, seventh-day adventists are 99.9% in agreement with YECs on flood geology, but believe that the earth and the universe are very old (it is the geologic column that they believe is young). Some YECs (using a mechanism of understanding that I have still not yet grasped), such as Robert Hermann, believe that the Big Bang theory, even as currently conceived, is perfectly compatible with YEC. Hartnett's model, on the other hand, while being at variance with the current Big Bang theory, has actually been published in secular physics and astrophysics journals.johnnyb_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Gregory- There is already some ID theory as it pertains to cosmology. I think it's quite obvious that any theory and any science has to conform to what the evidence says. However, the age of the Earth, I believe, is still up for grabs as it's assessment is based on assumptions that may or may not always be constant over time. Again, I don't think the age of the Earth is central to ID at this time. Your concern with it as it pertains to ID is not a scientific concern but a political one as is made obvious by your rhetoric. No matter the age of the Earth, why is it this one point that you want to focus on so much?Phaedros_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

Just so I understand this before replying to johnnyb and Hornspiel's longer posts: There is no and will be no ID theory in geology, paleontology, astronomy or cosmology. Is this what Phaedros is suggesting? Because if there *is* or *will be* such an ID theory, then it will simply have to confront what natural scientists across a wide range of locations, ethnicities and religions have concluded; that the Earth is most probably 'old.' This is *not* a political, but rather a simple scientific question. - Gregory p.s. johnnyb, this isn't anyone in particular's 'problem' (except for YECs who make it their defining mainstay), but rather if one expects others to give them credit, don't ignore the elephant in the room! p.p.s. Thanks idnet.com.au for being forthright about your views.Gregory_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Hornspiel. I for one am convinced that the data points to an old universe and earth. I have read and listened to Falk and Collins. I have also read and talked with ID proponents. Aside from any disagreement on the age question, ID is a program that has at its core the detection and analysis, using accepted scientific method, of paterns that confom to what is known of, and what would be expected from, the action of intelligent agency, rather than the simple laws of physics, chemistry, undirected mutation and natural selection acting over any period of time, no matter how long.idnet.com.au_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Hornspiel- So everyone from engineers to chemists should "take a stand" on the age of the earth? Frankly, I don't care what the age of the earth is, but I find the kind of political rhetoric you and Gregory employ when talking about this "stand" that you want ID to take to be only political and not scientific. Leave the age of the Earth to geology and paleontology, etc.Phaedros_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

HornSpiel,
BTW if ID is a scientific program then I believe it should take a stand on the age of the earth. The fact that it does not, indicates to me that its primary mission is not scientific but metaphysical—to change the way science is practiced.
Should ID also take a stand on music theory in order to be scientific? Should biology take a stand on acoustical theory in order to be scientific? I don't see the necessity for ID taking a stand on the age of the earth in order to be scientific in its own right of design detection.Clive Hayden_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

As far as I can tell, and my background is in anthropology, the basis for the social sciences is that methodological naturalism must be supplemented by methodological cognitivism, if I may coin a term. That is, social sciences recognize consciousness or the mind as a real non-material causal agent. There is of course debate between reductionists and non-reductionists if that is really true or not, but from a practical stand point, you need to assume that to do social science. (SETI falls into that category since it is the search for ETs. But because not have ever been found it is on the fringes of science. Animal cognition is also somewhat on the fringes, though for the higher level animals there is evidence for true causal intelligence.) So the social sciences clearly use teleology, and design arguments in their dealings with human agents. You should not expect the physical sciences to do the same where human agency is not proposed or suspected i.e. prehuman physical evolution. BTW if ID is a scientific program then I believe it should take a stand on the age of the earth. The fact that it does not, indicates to me that its primary mission is not scientific but metaphysical---to change the way science is practiced.HornSpiel_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Gregory - What the social sciences usually do is investigate human communal activity - it usually, as far as I'm aware, doesn't touch on whether or not these activities are entirely material or not. In a similar way, classical physics works despite the fact that the particles it studies are themselves made up of lower-level particles which do not behave classically, but does not require this. As for human-ID, Dembski's original book, The Design Inference, is focused almost entirely on human causation. Dembski and Marks' papers on Active Information focus on human causation. My own paper on irreducible complexity, though aimed at biology, also has a section which applies the concepts to Avida, and shows how to use the same principles to detect the designed portions of Avida digital organisms. As for my human-oriented ID work, I just did a presentation for a private ID conference (some graduate students with an interest in ID) which showed engineering applications of Intelligent Design. I blogged on one of them here. For a more expansive view of ID, naturalism, and mental causation, my senior paper in seminary covers how one could construct a non-material, non-reductionist cognitive framework. It also shows the deficiencies of philosophies (such as Nancey Murphy's Nonreductive Physicalism) which leave out non-material causation and opt only for physicalism. if you would like to read it,send me an email ( jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com ) and I'll send it to you. I'm presenting part of it this summer at the BSG conference. As for the age of the earth, why is it ID's problem what the age of the earth is? Are you also encouraging people to not use MRIs for medical testing just because it was invented by someone who thought the earth was young?johnnyb_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Gregory- Why does the age of the Earth matter so much to you that you think ID proponents should take a serious stand on it? The age of the Earth is not specifically a concern of ID. Is this for political reasons that you want to push this? Science is not politics for one and again ID is not about the age of the Earth it's about being able to detect the work of intelligence in nature. "The first question a student of science studies (or a PhD, like myself) would ask is: Which science? Whose science? This is because few people would argue that cultural sciences can study ‘designing’ or ‘constructing’ or ‘building’ or ‘composing’ or ‘making’ and other related verbs. Human beings simply do these things and it is not arguable as a generality. The fact that ID wants to insert ‘design’ that is supposedly ‘intelligent’ (i’ve not seen anyone quantify ‘intelligence’ yet) *into biology,* however, and that it does not (i.e. refuses to) speak of ‘designing’ as a process that can be studied (i.e. who, when, where and how), there will surely be resistance because it doesn’t sound like *what natural science does*." IQ quantifies intelligence does it not? Does someone who finds an arrowhead in the desert have to quantify the intelligence of the person that made it in order to conclude that it was made by an intelligent agent? ID isn't about how design was implemented in biology, at least not yet (it might be like asking how the big bang was implemented though). It is about whether or not you can attribute biology, or things found in organisms (the organisms themselves as well) to design or in other words to the products of some entity using means to attain an end. Now here is the ironic part, the people at BioLogos hold that God guided evolution correct? Well, if that's true wouldn't evolution's products exhibit that guiding intelligence? You go on to attempt to say what it is that "natural sciences" do, but you intentionally define as to rule out ID a priori. Why? Natural sciences can be applied in many different ways and to answer different types of questions. It seems to me you want ID to answer questions it isn't working to answer, at least not yet. This to me is the fundamental problem with evoluion as it is currently formulated and how it, in fact, is unscientific. Let's see if I can express this the way I would like to. It seems to me that ID is working from the ground up, i.e. Working on a limited question in order to answer it completely and adequately, whereas evolutionary theory seeks to explain too wide a range with too little evidence. In others words straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Lastly, what is nature? What are the causes and effects that we can, or are allowed to by darwinist fundamentalists, formulate in conducting science and in what areas are some causes not allowed and why aren't they allowed in those cases but are in others? How do we know what is possible in nature? Is it by dogma? By logic? By the way we wantto define what scence can and cannot answer? Or is it by observing nature and applying logic and reason to those observations and then finding the best explanations for them? I think the latter is the best way to start and if you do start there i thnk you'll find that Stephen Meyer's argument for Intelligent Design found in Signature in the Cell, i.e. that intelligence best explains the presence of a code and coding and decoding mechanisms found in the cell based on the facthat we know that intelligence is known as an adequate cause, and the only, for the creation and use of information, is the one that holds the day right now.Phaedros_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

johnnyb, it has been requested (or rather accused) at BioLogos already that the def'n of 'intelligent design' be changed. Already there has been progress made since a few months ago the ID people were under the title 'anti-science,' not 'intelligent design.' Perhaps this will encourage some of your colleagues to go over to BioLogos and ask about what 'BioLogos' and 'evolutionary creation' actually mean because several posters here have expressed they are unclear about it. But ID has work to do about how it should *not* be perceived as being anti-science, in so far as it proposes a different 'philosophy of science' than what is currently accepted in the natural sciences. I say 'natural sciences' specifically because in natural sciences one looks for natural causes. In cultural sciences one looks for cultural causes and not just for natural causes. So it is already true that 'natural causes,' which you say are not "the only ones available," do not hold a monopoly in the social or cultural sciences. 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, but then again, I was attracted at first to the grand claims of P. Johnson against 'naturalism' and for 'cultural renewal.' You say, johnnyb, that "design is a legitimate cause" and "science can detect it." The first question a student of science studies (or a PhD, like myself) would ask is: Which science? Whose science? This is because few people would argue that cultural sciences can study 'designing' or 'constructing' or 'building' or 'composing' or 'making' and other related verbs. Human beings simply do these things and it is not arguable as a generality. The fact that ID wants to insert 'design' that is supposedly 'intelligent' (i've not seen anyone quantify 'intelligence' yet) *into biology,* however, and that it does not (i.e. refuses to) speak of 'designing' as a process that can be studied (i.e. who, when, where and how), there will surely be resistance because it doesn't sound like *what natural science does*. However, you say: "I do some work in Intelligent Design regarding human causation." Please do tell more about this because I didn't think this existed. John West and the few other human scholars at the DI are focussed more on anti-Darwinism and anti-neo-Darwinism than they are on pro-Human-ID. Of course, first of all if I were to construct a human-social theory of 'intelligent design' I would surely not capitalize those two terms. Humans are not gods (despite what the 'idol' t.v. shows might suggest)! But isn't almost *all* human action (or, as you say, causation) in some way or another 'intelligent'? How would one distinguish between 'intelligent' and 'unintelligent' human causation? E.g. we could have a discussion about whether or not Germany's strategy in the WC semi-final was 'intelligently designed' or not. Germany lost, but their strategy could still have been 'intelligent,' just not intelligent enough! But there are many other *variables* that would need to be included to say, e.g. Spain's strategy was 'more intelligent' because they won. Do you see how difficult in cultural sciences this discussion is when restricted to 'design' that is 'intelligent'? Other terms are already in use, such as agency, intention, path dependency, disenchantment and re-enchantment, etc. that might better serve your needs. Also, though Darrel Falk is a representative of BioLogos, which this thread is focussed on, I wonder why noone has addressed my observation yet about BioLogos and ID. I read and post at BioLogos, which has a different mission than UD. One of BioLogos' aims is to show mainly American evangelical Christians that it is a responsible and reasonable and faithful position to accept openly and without guilt or shame that the planet Earth is millions of years and not merely a few thousand years old. The Bible does *not* require its readers to argue apologetically for a stationary Earth or a young Earth. Most theologians in the Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches accept an 'old' Earth, but Protestants and especially evangelical Christians are slow to catch wind of this. BioLogos says the Earth has been scientifically proven to be old; what does ID say? Why does ID not take a stand on the age of the Earth? It proposes a 'new model' of science that includes 'intelligent' causes, but should nevertheless still be expected to either support/validate or deny/invalidate the *vast* majority of both religious and non-religious geologists, cosmologists, astronomers, etc. *around the world* who have learned that the Earth is old and *not* young. Sure, there is little need for a computer scientist, politician, culturologist (actually, they must really know 'origins stories' to have any depth of knowledge of a given culture), engineer or even medical doctor to pronounce on the age of the Earth in order to do his or her work. But for a biologist, physicist, or anyone dealing with the 'natural' world to avoid this topic casts a negative light on their scientific competency and/or care for the reliability of scientific discoveries. In other words, not speaking about the age of the Earth makes ID look anti-science by implication and there is little that ID can do about this if it is unwilling to make a statement, e.g. by those in the IDM closest to the fields relevant to studying the age of the Earth. As for your question to BioLogos, I'll have a go: "Can human causation be explained in entirely material terms? If no, then how does BioLogos differ from Intelligent Design, other than ID want so rigorously pursue the idea as an academic subject, and BioLogos does not?" - johnnyb No, human causation cannot be explained in entirely material terms. There are cultural anthropologists, such as S. Sanderson, who write about cultural materialism. And then of course the shadow of K. Marx still remains in the North American Academy. However, it doesn't seem to be the mission of either BioLogos or ID to study 'non-material (or immaterial) human causation'. If you can direct me to an ID text by (a) social scientist(s) that seeks to unfold a theory of Human-ID, I'd be pleased to read it. So, let this message be an example that people who read and post at BioLogos are not all close-minded about intelligent design. Actually, many at BioLogos are comparatively quite well-read about ID and have read books or articles or Blog posts by IDists too. They just remain unconvinved, as do I, that ID's scientific renewal mission, i.e. to include extra-natural causes into natural sciences (in contrast to promoting ID in social or cultural sciences), has met with much success. Pattern recognition and specification-ing, fine. But without taking a STAND on age of Earth and being more powerfully integrative or synthetic of science with philosophy *and* theology (BioLogos is much more theologically active and productive than UD or the DI), the IDM and most other ID 'theories' will fail in the long-run. Perhaps UD working together with BioLogos, the 'intelligently designed' Foundation of America's most famous scientist, Francis Collins, will help both ID and BioLogos.Gregory_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

I would also be very interested to this:
Here’s my question to BioLogos - Are there causes that are non-material? Can human causation be explained in entirely material terms?
I am still trying to honestly grasp the concept of the core beliefs of BioLogos, which is that all of creation is perfectly explicable scientifically, yet God is the creator. I am still at the point that I see this as the equivalent of saying "I designed that patch of sand which is indistinguishable from the rest of the desert in which it is contained!" I am really, honestly trying to grasp it but I am not there. I understand the core of new atheism, I understand the core of YEC, but BioLogos & TE still don't make sense to me. I am also utterly perplexed by BioLogos' page Is there room in Biologos to believe in miracles. I'm guessing followers of BioLogos would disagree severely with Dembski's explanatory filter (Law - Chance - Design).uoflcard_{July 9, 2010
July
07
Jul
9
09
2010
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply